# What is the purpose of the millennium according to historic premillennialism



## Broadus

Like many who post on the Puritan Board, I cut my theological teeth on dispensation premillennialism after coming to Christ, with my "dispensational years" being from the early 1970s to the early 1990s. The "liberals" had spiritualized the Bible into meaningless, and the "conservatives" whom I knew took a literal approach to almost everything in the Bible. Growing up in a liberal Methodist church where I never heard the gospel preached, I easily swung to a fundamentalist literal position.

The longer is tried to understand eschatology through literalistic lens, however, the more complicated and seemingly contradictory things appeared. Introduced to historic premillennialism, I discovered what seemed a less complicated and less contradictory approach to eschatology. For me, however, historic premillennialism served as a halfway house to amillennialism, the position to which I've come over the past decade-plus and where I am quite settled.

Pastoring a tangentially (nominally?) Southern Baptist Church, however, keeps me among a smattering of dispensational premillennialists and a growing number of historic premillennialists, the latter, I think, sliding into that position because of the problems with dispensationalism and yet being able to continue holding onto a future millennial.

Having said that, the one thing that I cannot put my finger on is the purpose of the millennium in the historic premillennial context. Is it like a "do-over," giving humanity another shot at serving its Creator? Is it an attempt to have a more literal fulfillment of OT prophecy in a more spiritual setting than the dispensational view? It really seems like a repeat of the church age and a final "final" battle over Satan and evil. Can somebody provide some help?

Thank much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer

I am not a premillennial in any way, but I believe that a majority of historical premillennial theologists recognize the recapitulation in the book of Revelation. John Piper holds this view, perhaps checking with the Desiring God website would help. Some of them still believe that there are two people of God so they view the millennium as a way for God to fulfill His promise to the Jews.


----------



## Broadus

RJ Spencer said:


> I am not a premillennial in any way, but I believe that a majority of historical premillennial theologists recognize the recapitulation in the book of Revelation. John Piper holds this view, perhaps checking with the Desiring God website would help. Some of them still believe that there are two people of God so they view the millennium as a way for God to fulfill His promise to the Jews.



Thanks, R.J. I don't know any historic premillennialists who hold to the two people of God view, which I thought was one of the things that separated them from dispensational premillennialists.

What is hard to find, for me at least, is what the millennium is all about. The dispensationalists have a literal temple with literal sacrifices (a view which boggles the mind), but the historic dispensationalists that I've run across, either in person or by printed page, so not.

I found a Puritan Board thread on this very topic from a dozen or so years back and no one offered an answer. But historic premillennialists are usually very insistent on their view, though not militantly so as the Dispensationalists are. It seems the "Why?" of the millennium would be an important thing to understand and explain were I an historic premillennialist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer

Check out George E Ladd's What is The Kingdom of God? There is a PDF on Monergism.com https://www.monergism.com/topics/eschatology/all-millennial-views/historic-premillennialism

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Broadus

RJ Spencer said:


> Check out George E Ladd's What is The Kingdom of God? There is a PDF on Monergism.com https://www.monergism.com/topics/eschatology/all-millennial-views/historic-premillennialism



Thanks for the link. It's been over twenty years since I read that.

Okay, so the kingdom of God is now and not yet, with the not yet being fulfilled in the millennial kingdom. Am I understanding Ladd correctly?

And it seems that Ladd is saying that kingdom will come in power and vanquish sin and sinners, but the millennial kingdom, according to historic premillennialists, will not really be without sin, right? Won't there be unregenerate descendants born to believers who will comprise those whom Satan purportedly gathers at the end of the millennium, or am I conflating historic dispensationalism with dispensational?

If I understand Ladd correctly, the purpose of the millennium is for Christ to reign on Earth instead of his reign being from heaven over his church on Earth. But even then, there will be unregenerate who acquiesce to his reign (please correct me where my understanding of Ladd is incorrect).


----------



## RJ Spencer

Robert Culver seems to suggest that there will be no marriage nor sexual relations in the kingdom. He says the point of the millennium is for the Saints to rule and reign with Christ and to imprison Satan. They have a major problem if there is no intimacy though, because according to most premillennials Satan leads an army against the Saints at the end of the millennium. Where do those people come from?
It is all very silly, which is why I am 100% amill. If a premill like Piper can admit to the recapitulation in the book of Revelation, how can he still claim to believe in a literal millennium? Apparently they don't believe that chapter 20 is part of the recapitulation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Last Things/hispremil.html This is one of the historic pre-millennials that believe that ethnic Jews will be saved upon Jesus return and that they will receive the OT blessings.


----------



## Broadus

RJ Spencer said:


> Robert Culver seems to suggest that there will be no marriage nor sexual relations in the kingdom. He says the point of the millennium is for the Saints to rule and reign with Christ and to imprison Satan. They have a major problem if there is no intimacy though, because according to most premillennials Satan leads an army against the Saints at the end of the millennium. Where do those people come from?
> It is all very silly, which is why I am 100% amill. If a premill like Piper can admit to the recapitulation in the book of Revelation, how can he still claim to believe in a literal millennium? Apparently they don't believe that chapter 20 is part of the recapitulation.



It does seem silly. Revelation is all about symbolism and then one gets to chapter 20 and it becomes literal, at least to some degree. So, yes, Satan leads . . . whom?



RJ Spencer said:


> http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Last Things/hispremil.html This is one of the historic pre-millennials that believe that ethnic Jews will be saved upon Jesus return and that they will receive the OT blessings.



Among the things that have troubled me concerning premillennialism of any stripe is that it makes the new heavens and new earth seem almost anticlimactic. 

Also, if the ethnic Jews are to be saved in order to receive the OT blessings and Christ literally rules a kingdom inhabited by unregenerate people (again, the rebels Satan gathers have to come from somewhere), it seems that the Messiah which Jesus disavowed to the Pharisees and to his apostles and to Pilate seems to be merely one of timing, not of substance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim

RJ Spencer said:


> Robert Culver seems to suggest that there will be no marriage nor sexual relations in the kingdom. He says the point of the millennium is for the Saints to rule and reign with Christ and to imprison Satan. They have a major problem if there is no intimacy though, because according to most premillennials Satan leads an army against the Saints at the end of the millennium. Where do those people come from?
> It is all very silly, which is why I am 100% amill. If a premill like Piper can admit to the recapitulation in the book of Revelation, how can he still claim to believe in a literal millennium? Apparently they don't believe that chapter 20 is part of the recapitulation.



Where does Culver say this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

It seems to me that holding to a recapitulation view of Revelation is fatal to any sort of premillennialism. That said, the only recapitulation I'm familiar with is the kind taught by the likes of Hendrickson and Riddlebarger.

I don't see how you hold to premil without seeing Rev 20 coming after Rev 19 sequentially rather than as a recapitulation.

If nothing else, the OP exists because historic premils in recent decades have largely failed to teach their distinctive views. In part perhaps that's because many of them haven't thought about it a great deal. Many can't get past Rev 20 and can't accept dispensationalism, so they adopt "historic premil" and just sort of move on.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RJ Spencer

Pilgrim said:


> Where does Culver say this?


Which Part?

He says that his view of the Millennium is that only the saved will take part in the first resurrection. I do not see anything about relations in the article I cited, it is likely that I got different authors mixed up, I spent a lot of time on Monergism.com trying to find information. I am not a premillennial myself, but I noticed that the OP was not the first to bring forward similar questions without any assistance so I attempted to assist in any way that I could.
The thing about recapitulation is something the John Piper, a self professing historic premill, has stated time and again. Perhaps it is not the term 'recapitulation' that he uses? Parallelism is likely the word that he uses, but he uses it in the same way, viewing Revelation as the same story told from different perspectives. Clearly Piper does not put Revelations 20 into the parallel parts of the book. I will attempt to retrace my steps and find the quote about relations in the millennium.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

RJ Spencer said:


> Which Part?
> 
> He says that his view of the Millennium is that only the saved will take part in the first resurrection. I do not see anything about relations in the article I cited, it is likely that I got different authors mixed up, I spent a lot of time on Monergism.com trying to find information. I am not a premillennial myself, but I noticed that the OP was not the first to bring forward similar questions without any assistance so I attempted to assist in any way that I could.
> The thing about recapitulation is something the John Piper, a self professing historic premill, has stated time and again. Perhaps it is not the term 'recapitulation' that he uses? Parallelism is likely the word that he uses, but he uses it in the same way, viewing Revelation as the same story told from different perspectives. Clearly Piper does not put Revelations 20 into the parallel parts of the book. I will attempt to retrace my steps and find the quote about relations in the millennium.



I was asking about the reference to marriage and sexual relations. I'll try to read through that part of his ST today or tomorrow. But I don't think he goes into much detail there compared to some of his other books. I haven't looked at this doctrine in any detail in almost a decade.


----------



## RJ Spencer

I am still searching for the quote but, wouldn't the view of a literal millennium during which the first resurrection takes place include Matthew 22:23-33 ? And if so, wouldn't that mean that there is no sex in the millennium? Also, Ladd and Culver? were Baptists, If they do not hold that children of believers are to be baptized, how could they say that children of believers can take part in the resurrection of the righteous? If they are born during the millennium would that automatically make them believers from birth? It seems logical that Ladd and Culver believed that there was no sex in the millennium...
I will still attempt to find that quote.


----------



## RJ Spencer

Reading through all of this work again I find it disturbing that the historical pre-millennials continually attack all Amillennials on the idea of the first resurrection being our regeneration. I do not hold this view and I know many other amillennials who hold that the first resurrection takes place upon our death, when we go to be with our Lord in Heaven. We believe that only believers go on to our eternal destinations the moment that we die, the unregenerate seem to remain until the final resurrection at which time they are judged and sent into eternal torment.


----------



## Pilgrim

RJ Spencer said:


> I find it disturbing that the historical pre-millennials continually attack all Amillennials on the idea of the first resurrection being our regeneration.



I haven't read every amil work out there, but that is generally understood to be the standard amil teaching. I don't think I have anything else handy, but that's what the amillennial Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible asserts: "Just as the second death is the ultimate punishment of hellfire after the (first) death of the body, so the first resurrection is a gift of spiritual life before the (second) resurrection of the body." 

Here's another resource that teaches the same thing: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/first-and-second-resurrection/

What amil writer(s) teach something besides the first resurrection being regeneration?


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> I haven't read every amil work out there, but that is generally understood to be the standard amil teaching. I don't think I have anything else handy, but that's what the amillennial Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible asserts: "Just as the second death is the ultimate punishment of hellfire after the (first) death of the body, so the first resurrection is a gift of spiritual life before the (second) resurrection of the body."
> 
> Here's another resource that teaches the same thing: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/first-and-second-resurrection/
> 
> What amil writer(s) teach something besides the first resurrection being regeneration?


Both resurrectio s reference glorified bodily forms, so why would the first one be when born again?


----------



## RJ Spencer

Sorry it took so long to find this, It was actual a quote from John Gill not from Ladd or Culver like I had original thought. Also, it wasn't a direct quote. I had said that the author made it sound like there was no sexual relations.

1d. This glorious and visible kingdom of Christ, will not take place till after the resurrection of the just, and the renovation of the world {3}. As soon as Christ personally appears, the dead in him will rise first; this is the first resurrection, which they that have a part in, shall reign with Christ a thousand years; as appears from the above place in the Revelation referred unto. These "children of the resurrection", as Christ calls them, #Lu 20:35,36 and who will be worthy of "that world", the new world, in which Christ and they will reign, will be like the angels, die no more; nor will they eat and drink, in a corporal sense; nor marry and be given in marriage; carnal appetites will not be indulged; nor carnal pleasures enjoyed: in this state, nothing but pure, refined, spiritual pleasures, will be had, suited to the bodies and souls of men, united in the resurrection state.
From http://www.historicism.com/Gill/gillmill.htm There is also a link to the article on Monergism.com.
Sorry it took me so long to find it, I'm at work trying to read in between doing actual work.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Broadus

Thanks for finding that, and thanks for continuing the discussion. I very much appreciate it. 

Two questions then, realizing you’re amil and not premil: (1) Who are those whom Satan rallies at the end of the millennium against Christ according to this view, and (2) Is this “renovated” world the eternal new world or will a new “new” world replace the renovated one?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer

I'm not certain about the first question, perhaps at the time of the second resurrection they believe that there will be time in between that resurrection and the judgment?
But I can tell you for certain that John Gill believes that the renovated earth is the new earth. Most tend to think this, they use Isaiah 11 to rationalize this.


----------



## RJ Spencer

I found this from the same Gill article;
5b1. What will become of the new earth, after the thousand years of the reign of Christ and his saints on it are ended? whether it will be annihilated or not? My mind has been at an uncertainty about this matter; sometimes inclining one way, and sometimes another; because of the seeming different accounts of it in #Isa 66:22 where it is said to "remain" before the Lord, and in #Re 20:11 where it is said to "flee away" from the face of the judge; as may be seen by my "notes" on both places, and by a "correction" at the end of the "fourth" volume on the Old Testament; but my last and present thoughts are, that it will continue for ever; and that the passage in #Re 20:11 is a rhetorical exaggeration of the glory and greatness of the judge, which appeared such to John in the vision, that the heavens and earth could not bear it, and therefore "seemed" to disappear; the phrase, "from whose face", which is unusual, seems to suggest and confirm it. I am of opinion therefore, that the new earth will be a sort of an apartment to heaven, whither the saints will pass and repass at their pleasure; and which agrees with other scriptures, which speak of the saints dwelling on, and inheriting the earth for ever {38}.
5b2. Who the Gog and Magog army are, that shall encompass the camp of the saints, when the thousand years are ended? What makes an answer to this the more difficult is, that at the general conflagration of the present earth, all the wicked in it will be burnt up, and none but righteous persons will dwell in the new earth; it is to no purpose therefore, to think of Turks, Tartarinns, Scythians, and other barbarous nations {39}, types of these; nor of any remains {40} of the wicked who escaped the general destruction, as supposed; nor of such frightened at the first appearance of Christ, who fled to the remotest parts, and now resume their courage, and come forth: it is a strange absurd notion of Dr. Burnet {41}, that these will be men born of the earth, generated from the slime of the ground, and the heat of the sun; and increasing and multiplying after the manner of men, by carnal propagation, after a thousand years will become very numerous, as the sand of the sea, and make the attack they are said to do. But there is no need to have recourse to so gross an expedient as this: the persons are at hand, and easy to be met with; they are "the rest of the dead", the wicked, who live not till the thousand years are ended; and then will live, being raised from the dead, even all the wicked that have been from the beginning of the world; which accounts for their number being as the sand of the sea: and these rising where they died, and were buried, will be in and come from the four quarters of the world; and as they died enemies to Christ, and his saints, they will rise such; hell and the grave will make no change in them; and as they laid down with the "weapons of war, their swords under their heads", they will be in a readiness, and rise with the same malicious and revengeful spirit; and though it will be a mad enterprise, to attack saints in an immortal state, who cannot die; and Christ, the King of kings, at the head of them; yet when it is considered, that they will rise as weak and feeble: as unable to resist temptation, and as capable of deception as ever; and what with being buoyed up with their own number, and the posse of devils at the head of them; and especially considering the desperateness of their case, and this their last struggle to deliver themselves from eternal ruin; it may not so much be wondered at, that they should engage in this strange undertaking {42}.


----------



## Broadus

RJ Spencer said:


> I found this from the same Gill article;
> 5b1. What will become of the new earth, after the thousand years of the reign of Christ and his saints on it are ended? whether it will be annihilated or not? My mind has been at an uncertainty about this matter; sometimes inclining one way, and sometimes another; because of the seeming different accounts of it in #Isa 66:22 where it is said to "remain" before the Lord, and in #Re 20:11 where it is said to "flee away" from the face of the judge; as may be seen by my "notes" on both places, and by a "correction" at the end of the "fourth" volume on the Old Testament; but my last and present thoughts are, that it will continue for ever; and that the passage in #Re 20:11 is a rhetorical exaggeration of the glory and greatness of the judge, which appeared such to John in the vision, that the heavens and earth could not bear it, and therefore "seemed" to disappear; the phrase, "from whose face", which is unusual, seems to suggest and confirm it. I am of opinion therefore, that the new earth will be a sort of an apartment to heaven, whither the saints will pass and repass at their pleasure; and which agrees with other scriptures, which speak of the saints dwelling on, and inheriting the earth for ever {38}.
> 5b2. Who the Gog and Magog army are, that shall encompass the camp of the saints, when the thousand years are ended? What makes an answer to this the more difficult is, that at the general conflagration of the present earth, all the wicked in it will be burnt up, and none but righteous persons will dwell in the new earth; it is to no purpose therefore, to think of Turks, Tartarinns, Scythians, and other barbarous nations {39}, types of these; nor of any remains {40} of the wicked who escaped the general destruction, as supposed; nor of such frightened at the first appearance of Christ, who fled to the remotest parts, and now resume their courage, and come forth: it is a strange absurd notion of Dr. Burnet {41}, that these will be men born of the earth, generated from the slime of the ground, and the heat of the sun; and increasing and multiplying after the manner of men, by carnal propagation, after a thousand years will become very numerous, as the sand of the sea, and make the attack they are said to do. But there is no need to have recourse to so gross an expedient as this: the persons are at hand, and easy to be met with; they are "the rest of the dead", the wicked, who live not till the thousand years are ended; and then will live, being raised from the dead, even all the wicked that have been from the beginning of the world; which accounts for their number being as the sand of the sea: and these rising where they died, and were buried, will be in and come from the four quarters of the world; and as they died enemies to Christ, and his saints, they will rise such; hell and the grave will make no change in them; and as they laid down with the "weapons of war, their swords under their heads", they will be in a readiness, and rise with the same malicious and revengeful spirit; and though it will be a mad enterprise, to attack saints in an immortal state, who cannot die; and Christ, the King of kings, at the head of them; yet when it is considered, that they will rise as weak and feeble: as unable to resist temptation, and as capable of deception as ever; and what with being buoyed up with their own number, and the posse of devils at the head of them; and especially considering the desperateness of their case, and this their last struggle to deliver themselves from eternal ruin; it may not so much be wondered at, that they should engage in this strange undertaking {42}.



Now that is strange to my mind, and it’s the sort of thing that happens the more literally one takes apocalyptic literature. The new earth will have rebellion and those whom Satan leads are the resurrected wicked. Did I get that right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer

That seems to be what Gill is getting at. In his own words, and practically the same breath, he affirms that he believes the Earth during the millennium will be the New eternal earth and that the Army of Satan at the end of the millennium is those that take part in the second resurrection. He even admits that some of Revelation 20 should be taken spiritually which is something that they attack the Amill for.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Bill (@Broadus),

This may be of help (from Dean Davis' _High King of Heaven_). The acronym GETD in the text is from the book's subtitle, _Discovering The Keys to the Great End Times Debate_:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Broadus said:


> Now that is strange to my mind, and it’s the sort of thing that happens the more literally one takes apocalyptic literature. The new earth will have rebellion and those whom Satan leads are the resurrected wicked. Did I get that right?


Yes,as there will be physical people still born, and not glorified then.


----------



## RamistThomist

Broadus said:


> What is hard to find, for me at least, is what the millennium is all about. The dispensationalists have a literal temple with literal sacrifices (a view which boggles the mind), but the historic dispensationalists that I've run across, either in person or by printed page, so not.



I am pre-wrath premil, though I don't write much about it. I'm sure there is a "purpose," but a premil could just respond, "Why does there have to be a stated purpose? If Scripture says it, ex hypothesi, then it's there. That's all we need."


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Both resurrectio s reference glorified bodily forms, so why would the first one be when born again?



Precisely because the amil doesn't believe that both resurrections refer to a bodily resurrection. I disagree with amils, but they are quite consistent on this point.


----------



## RamistThomist

RJ Spencer said:


> If a premill like Piper can admit to the recapitulation in the book of Revelation, how can he still claim to believe in a literal millennium?



All depends on where in the text the recapitulation is taking place. Most amils will say that the final events of Revelation (full return, bodily, etc) aren't spiritual recapitulations for something else. So at least some part of Revelation 20 are being interpreted literally from an amil perspective.


----------



## Broadus

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Bill (@Broadus),
> 
> This may be of help (from Dean Davis' _High King of Heaven_). The acronym GETD in the text is from the book's subtitle, _Discovering The Keys to the Great End Times Debate_:



Thank you, Steve. I appreciate that.


----------



## Broadus

BayouHuguenot said:


> . . .
> I'm sure there is a "purpose," but a premil could just respond, "Why does there have to be a stated purpose? If Scripture says it, ex hypothesi, then it's there. That's all we need."



If, indeed, Scripture says it, then that is enough. Still, does Scripture definitely lay out things without giving a purpose, either explicitly or implicitly? 

Dispensational premils would say the purpose is to fulfill literally OT prophesy. What about historic premils? I don’t find they take that same approach, in that they spiritualize the temple and renewed sacrifices.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Broadus said:


> If, indeed, Scripture says it, then that is enough. Still, does Scripture definitely lay out things without giving a purpose, either explicitly or implicitly?
> 
> Dispensational premils would say the purpose is to fulfill literally OT prophesy. What about historic premils? I don’t find they take that same approach, in that they spiritualize the temple and renewed sacrifices.


We would still see that as bring the fulfillment of the Messianic Age, as when the Kingdom is extended over entire Earth, as He reigns and then the Eternal State.


----------



## Broadus

Dachaser said:


> We would still see that as bring the fulfillment of the Messianic Age, as when the Kingdom is extended over entire Earth, as He reigns and then the Eternal State.



Thanks for responding—that makes sense. I would see the eternal state as the ultimate fulfillment and makes the historic premil view superfluous. 

I have to say that my big beef is not with historic premillennialism but with dispensational. Dispensationalism, in my view, has done great harm to the church, but that’s a subject for another thread.


----------



## Dachaser

Broadus said:


> Thanks for responding—that makes sense. I would see the eternal state as the ultimate fulfillment and makes the historic premil view superfluous.
> 
> I have to say that my big beef is not with historic premillennialism but with dispensational. Dispensationalism, in my view, has done great harm to the church, but that’s a subject for another thread.


We see the literal reigning on Earth as real Messianic Age time period.


----------



## Broadus

Dachaser said:


> We see the literal reigning on Earth as real Messianic Age time period.



I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?


----------



## Dachaser

Broadus said:


> I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?


Church always was part of the plan of God, not added in after Isreal refused Jesus as Messiah, and they hold to rapture seperate from second coming still.


----------



## RamistThomist

Broadus said:


> I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?



The specifics on both sides would need to be fleshed out. Classical dispensationalism needed the rapture because God couldn't work with Israel and the Church at the same time. I don't think Progressive Dispensationalists necessarily hold that view, which is why Charles Ryrie warned that progressive dispensationalism was a Trojan Horse inside DTS.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Broadus said:


> I understand. So is now an interim church age? Would that be different that progressive dispensationalism’s view?


I believe so. I was a member of a large Baptist Church where the Pastors held to different views. There weren't any old time Dispensationalists Pastoring. In fact it was a time when Progressive Dispensationalism was making advances. I believe it was coming out of Dallas Theological Seminary at that time. They didn't view the Church Age as some plan B.


----------



## Pilgrim

Although some may wish to call me something else, I would describe myself as a classic or covenant premillennialist.

I haven't looked closely at this subject in about a decade. But off the top of my head, it's the idea that Christ shall be vindicated and have dominion *in space and time history*. That is why millennialism (whether pre or post) in all its forms has been derided as a "Theology of Glory" and "Carnal Dreams" or whatever by Lutherans and by Lutheran-influenced Reformed people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Broadus said:


> If, indeed, Scripture says it, then that is enough. Still, does Scripture definitely lay out things without giving a purpose, either explicitly or implicitly?
> 
> Dispensational premils would say the purpose is to fulfill literally OT prophesy. What about historic premils? I don’t find they take that same approach, in that they spiritualize the temple and renewed sacrifices.



The older type of covenant or historic premil would also say it is to literally fulfill OT prophecy, and they inveighed against spiritualizing and allegorism. Horatius Bonar wrote that interpretation should be "literal if possible," and one contributor to his journal on prophecy alleged that Patrick Fairbairn's teaching that all prophecy is conditional is not even Calvinistic! (By and large, premils of that era held to Calvinistic soteriology.) But generally they don't push literal interpretation as far as dispensationalists do. Some (including Spurgeon) might say that there might be a temple but that it might be a "Christian structure" rather than teaching that everything, including the sacrifices, has to be fulfilled in exhaustive detail the way that many dispensationalists would. But they would argue that there is more than enough OT that cannot be spiritualized or "explained away" to justify premillenialism, and a more robust form of it than what is taught by current "historic" premils. And I think it is fair to say that in general they didn't think that the Bible clearly teaches quite as detailed an eschatological scheme as someone like J. Dwight Pentecost did.

The "Historic premillennialism" of George Ladd and those who follow him (Grudem, Moore, etc.) lays claim to being "historic" in the sense that it teaches that the rapture and the Second Coming are one event (post-trib.) But it seems to me that there is significant discontinuity between them and the older premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle, and Andrew and Horatius Bonar that taught a restoration of ethnic Israel to the Promised Land.

This is why this latter day "historic" premil is often termed a "one text" premillennialism, because they interpret OT prophecy in much the same way as amils do and because they would generally be amil if it weren't for Rev. 20. (Several years ago, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, who is heavily influenced by Ladd, switched from amil to premil in the middle of a series on Revelation. If I remember correctly, he said that it didn't really change much of what he had taught earlier. I've heard that he's since switched back to amil, but I haven't seen anything concrete on that.)

If the Ladd type was the only "historic" premil that there is, I too would ask "What is it good for?" For some of their proponents, what their teaching on the Kingdom of God in particular is good for is an emphasis on social justice. That was the case with Ladd in the beginning, and it is probably most clearly seen today in Russell Moore. They have viewed both traditional dispensationalism and amillennialism (especially pre-Hoekema, who was influenced by Ladd's kingdom theology) as being too otherworldly in their focus.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> The older type of covenant or historic premil would also say it is to literally fulfill OT prophecy, and they inveighed against spiritualizing and allegorism. Horatius Bonar wrote that interpretation should be "literal if possible," and one contributor to his journal on prophecy alleged that Patrick Fairbairn's teaching that all prophecy is conditional is not even Calvinistic! (By and large, premils of that era held to Calvinistic soteriology.) But generally they don't push literal interpretation as far as dispensationalists do. Some (including Spurgeon) might say that there might be a temple but that it might be a "Christian structure" rather than teaching that everything, including the sacrifices, has to be fulfilled in exhaustive detail the way that many dispensationalists would. But they would argue that there is more than enough OT that cannot be spiritualized or "explained away" to justify premillenialism, and a more robust form of it than what is taught by current "historic" premils. And I think it is fair to say that in general they didn't think that the Bible clearly teaches quite as detailed an eschatological scheme as someone like J. Dwight Pentecost did.
> 
> The "Historic premillennialism" of George Ladd and those who follow him (Grudem, Moore, etc.) lays claim to being "historic" in the sense that it teaches that the rapture and the Second Coming are one event (post-trib.) But it seems to me that there is significant discontinuity between them and the older premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle, and Andrew and Horatius Bonar that taught a restoration of ethnic Israel to the Promised Land.
> 
> This is why this latter day "historic" premil is often termed a "one text" premillennialism, because they interpret OT prophecy in much the same way as amils do and because they would generally be amil if it weren't for Rev. 20. (Several years ago, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, who is heavily influenced by Ladd, switched from amil to premil in the middle of a series on Revelation. If I remember correctly, he said that it didn't really change much of what he had taught earlier. I've heard that he's since switched back to amil, but I haven't seen anything concrete on that.)
> 
> If the Ladd type was the only "historic" premil that there is, I too would ask "What is it good for?" For some of their proponents, what their teaching on the Kingdom of God in particular is good for is an emphasis on social justice. That was the case with Ladd in the beginning, and it is probably most clearly seen today in Russell Moore. They have viewed both traditional dispensationalism and amillennialism (especially pre-Hoekema, who was influenced by Ladd's kingdom theology) as being too otherworldly in their focus.


Spurgeon was premil, and saw the Jews restored at time of second voming, so historical and Dispensational premil seem to have that in common.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dachaser said:


> Spurgeon was premil, and saw the Jews restored at time of second voming, so historical and Dispensational premil seem to have that in common.



The older type of "historic" premil and Progressive Dispensationalism definitely have some similarity. Some in the latter group don't even insist on pre-trib. The main differences between PD and covenant premil are probably with regard to law and grace, covenant theology, and similar things. I tend to use "covenant" or "classic" to refer to the older type of premil since most "historic premils" today reject covenant theology. Among the Baptists they tend to be progressive covenantalists or something like that.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> The older type of "historic" premil and Progressive Dispensationalism definitely have some similarity. Some in the latter group don't even insist on pre-trib. The main differences between PD and covenant premil are probably with regard to law and grace, covenant theology, and similar things. I tend to use "covenant" or "classic" to refer to the older type of premil since most "historic premils" today reject covenant theology. Among the Baptists they tend to be progressive covenantalists or something like that.


What is progressive covenantalists?


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Precisely because the amil doesn't believe that both resurrections refer to a bodily resurrection. I disagree with amils, but they are quite consistent on this point.



Many Amils I know hold Christ to be "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). By having our "part" in Him through salvation we become part of that great spiritual harvest. Through physical resurrection we become part of that great physical harvest. Both the first and second resurrections are totally connected. Because Christ conquered the grave physically so we will conquer the grave if we have our "part" or portion "in Christ" through salvation. The key is that we initially experience our part in that glorious first resurrection "by faith" and therefore experience both resurrections.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Pilgrim said:


> The older type of covenant or historic premil would also say it is to literally fulfill OT prophecy, and they inveighed against spiritualizing and allegorism. Horatius Bonar wrote that interpretation should be "literal if possible," and one contributor to his journal on prophecy alleged that Patrick Fairbairn's teaching that all prophecy is conditional is not even Calvinistic! (By and large, premils of that era held to Calvinistic soteriology.) But generally they don't push literal interpretation as far as dispensationalists do. Some (including Spurgeon) might say that there might be a temple but that it might be a "Christian structure" rather than teaching that everything, including the sacrifices, has to be fulfilled in exhaustive detail the way that many dispensationalists would. But they would argue that there is more than enough OT that cannot be spiritualized or "explained away" to justify premillenialism, and a more robust form of it than what is taught by current "historic" premils. And I think it is fair to say that in general they didn't think that the Bible clearly teaches quite as detailed an eschatological scheme as someone like J. Dwight Pentecost did.
> 
> The "Historic premillennialism" of George Ladd and those who follow him (Grudem, Moore, etc.) lays claim to being "historic" in the sense that it teaches that the rapture and the Second Coming are one event (post-trib.) But it seems to me that there is significant discontinuity between them and the older premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle, and Andrew and Horatius Bonar that taught a restoration of ethnic Israel to the Promised Land.
> 
> This is why this latter day "historic" premil is often termed a "one text" premillennialism, because they interpret OT prophecy in much the same way as amils do and because they would generally be amil if it weren't for Rev. 20. (Several years ago, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, who is heavily influenced by Ladd, switched from amil to premil in the middle of a series on Revelation. If I remember correctly, he said that it didn't really change much of what he had taught earlier. I've heard that he's since switched back to amil, but I haven't seen anything concrete on that.)
> 
> If the Ladd type was the only "historic" premil that there is, I too would ask "What is it good for?" For some of their proponents, what their teaching on the Kingdom of God in particular is good for is an emphasis on social justice. That was the case with Ladd in the beginning, and it is probably most clearly seen today in Russell Moore. They have viewed both traditional dispensationalism and amillennialism (especially pre-Hoekema, who was influenced by Ladd's kingdom theology) as being too otherworldly in their focus.



Out of interest, who are all the wicked mortals who populate the future premill millennium and give allegiance to Satan at the end? Basically: where do they come from and what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God?

Do you believe in a restored millennial temple and the restoration of animal sacrifices in that age?


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Many Amils I know hold Christ to be "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). By having our "part" in Him through salvation we become part of that great spiritual harvest. Through physical resurrection we become part of that great physical harvest. Both the first and second resurrections are totally connected. Because Christ conquered the grave physically so we will conquer the grave if we have our "part" or portion "in Christ" through salvation. The key is that we initially experience our part in that glorious first resurrection "by faith" and therefore experience both resurrections.



I know amils believe that. That's kind of what I said. I wasn't criticizing them (at least not there).


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Basically: where do they come from



Most premils say earth. They didn't die in the major battles between Rev. 19 and 20.


sovereigngrace said:


> what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God?



To be fair to premils, they aren't interpreting the post-Rev 19 Battle events as "wrath of God." At least not in the Great White Throne sense.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Most premils say earth. They didn't die in the major battles between Rev. 19 and 20.
> 
> 
> To be fair to premils, they aren't interpreting the post-Rev 19 Battle events as "wrath of God." At least not in the Great White Throne sense.


Yes, as we see the Wrath during Tribulation period.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Most premils say earth. They didn't die in the major battles between Rev. 19 and 20.



One of the major struggles I had/have with Premil, and why I felt I had to abandon it, was that Premils explain the whole end-time events in the light of their opinion of Rev 20. When pressed, they are slow to corroborate all the major tenets of Premil. So, I have a few questions that I cannot get answered by Premils:

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely 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?

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

What Scripture (including Revelation 20) do you consider definitely teaches there are two distinct future judgment days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+?



BayouHuguenot said:


> To be fair to premils, they aren't interpreting the post-Rev 19 Battle events as "wrath of God." At least not in the Great White Throne sense.



I realize that. But with that comes major theological problems. Maybe you could address these.

Please list anyone that could possibly be excluded from the camp of the wicked, destroyed in Revelation 19:18, judiciously described as “the flesh of all men”? Surely the Holy Spirit eliminates any ambiguity in regard to the wholesale nature of the destruction of the wicked by adding the water-tight suffix, “both free and bond, both small and great”?

Surely everything about Revelation 19:15 is climactic? Christ is seen pouring out His wrath without mixture upon the nations as He smites them in His fury with “a sharp sword” that comes “out of his mouth.” What is the result of this act? It shall “smite the nations” that have missed the catching away. The word for “smite” in this text is the Greek word _patasso_, which means to strike with a weapon or to smite fatally. It means to smite down, cut down, to kill, slay. The nations left behind are clearly totally destroyed. Christ destroys them by the very utterance of His mouth.

How possibly can the wicked survive in the Revelation 19 and enter some sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age when it says that “he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God”? Surely what awaits those left behind is final destruction?

Surely just in case the reader is not getting it, Revelation 19:21 reinforces the climatic nature of Christ’s Coming by telling us that “the loipoy (or) those left behind … were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth”? The result of this is shown as: “all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” How could the enlightened reader come to any other conclusion than those that are left behind are completely and totally destroyed?

Surely Revelation 19 is the end of a parallel, and Revelation 20 is the beginning of a new one?

Also,

Is there anywhere in the New Testament that remotely corroborates the Premillennial view of Revelation 19-20 that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?

Which unregenerate are excluded from the description of "them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians 1:8)?

Which followers of the beast are exempt from destruction when Jesus comes? After all, according to Scripture, all the wicked that reject Christ are not in the Lamb's Book of life from the foundation of the world follow the beast (Revelation 13:3-4, 8 and 17:8).

Can you tell me what unsaved do not give allegiance to the beast/Antichrist/mystery of iniquity?

When I Thessalonians 5:2-3 describes the destruction that accompanies Christ appearing “as a thief in the night” as “sudden destruction” – how would you define “sudden”?

When I Thessalonians 5:2-3 describes the result of the “sudden destruction” that accompanies Christ appearing as leaving those left behind it such a dammed condition that “they shall not escape,” how could you imagine that anyone would survive?

Jesus compares His return and the judgment He pours out to Noah's day and Sodom when they were completely destroyed, saying, “Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” What percentage of the wicked worldwide were destroyed through the judgment in Noah’s day?

What percentage of the wicked were destroyed through the judgment in Sodom and Gomorrah in Lot’s day?


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely 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?



Premils don't die on the hill of "it has to be 1000 years." If you want corroborating Scriptures, Isaiah's Little Apocalypse. Anyway, if Revelation 20 says what it says, why do I have to get other Scriptures to back it up (which I can find)?


sovereigngrace said:


> What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?



Why do I have to find other Scriptures? But since you ask, even Vos admits that the eita....epeita construction in 1 Cor. 15 implies as much.


sovereigngrace said:


> What Scripture (including Revelation 20) do you consider definitely teaches there are two distinct future judgment days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+?



See above responses.

I'll pass on the rest of the questions. It feels like "Twenty Questions."


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Premils don't die on the hill of "it has to be 1000 years." If you want corroborating Scriptures, Isaiah's Little Apocalypse. Anyway, if Revelation 20 says what it says, why do I have to get other Scriptures to back it up (which I can find)?
> 
> 
> Why do I have to find other Scriptures? But since you ask, even Vos admits that the eita....epeita construction in 1 Cor. 15 implies as much.
> 
> 
> See above responses.
> 
> I'll pass on the rest of the questions. It feels like "Twenty Questions."



I believe, this lack of corroboration (supporting Scripture with Scripture) that you concede, is at the core of why many reject the Premil theory. This is where the school of thought falls down. Corroboration is fundamental to understanding any truth in Scripture. Without it you are left with private interpretation. 

The Reformers introduced a very solid interpretative system that was based on the crucial principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture. They used this to dismantle Roman Catholic heresy. They required corroborative evidence to support their opinion of any given text. This was to prevent error and to aid our understanding of truth.

Sound theologians have employed this important principle to avoid speculative interpretation and the damage of forcing a meaning on a text that contradicts repeated Scripture.

Anyone that is a student of this Book (and theology) will know the importance of this great demand. Anyone that has ever been involved in law will also know how essential it is in proving a fact.

Most Christians are aware of the crucial mandate of 2 Peter 1:20: “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

When someone takes one Scripture and makes it contradicts numerous other Scripture you know that their understanding of that text is wrong.

*Amillennialism*

Scripture shows that the Second Coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation. After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming. A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13 & Matt 28:19-20).

The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalms 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corrupt occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Without it you are left with private interpretation.



That does not logically follow. For it is still my private judgment that Scripture b backs up Scripture a.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> I believe, this lack of corroboration (supporting Scripture with Scripture) that you concede, is at the core of why many reject the Premil theory. This is where the school of thought falls down. Corroboration is fundamental to understanding any truth in Scripture. Without it you are left with private interpretation.
> 
> The Reformers introduced a very solid interpretative system that was based on the crucial principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture. They used this to dismantle Roman Catholic heresy. They required corroborative evidence to support their opinion of any given text. This was to prevent error and to aid our understanding of truth.
> 
> Sound theologians have employed this important principle to avoid speculative interpretation and the damage of forcing a meaning on a text that contradicts repeated Scripture.
> 
> Anyone that is a student of this Book (and theology) will know the importance of this great demand. Anyone that has ever been involved in law will also know how essential it is in proving a fact.
> 
> Most Christians are aware of the crucial mandate of 2 Peter 1:20: “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”
> 
> When someone takes one Scripture and makes it contradicts numerous other Scripture you know that their understanding of that text is wrong.
> 
> *Amillennialism*
> 
> Scripture shows that the Second Coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation. After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming. A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13 & Matt 28:19-20).
> 
> The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalms 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”
> 
> John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”
> 
> Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corrupt occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”
> 
> Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.
> 
> It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.



Were my responses simply a springboard for you to talk about amillennialism? And you aren't telling me anything new. I've read through Revelation in Greek. I've read most of the major defenses of all three positions (going back to 2002 in my journey).


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That does not logically follow. For it is still my private judgment that Scripture b backs up Scripture a.


Indeed, as we who hold to premil see the OT Propets as supporting a literal Messianic Age here on Earth.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Were my responses simply a springboard for you to talk about amillennialism? And you aren't telling me anything new. I've read through Revelation in Greek. I've read most of the major defenses of all three positions (going back to 2002 in my journey).


All major positions use scriptures to back their view up with.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> All major positions use scriptures to back their view up with.



Would you then address the main tenets of Premil and support them with other Scripture? What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil. That is why Premils avoid answering these simple questions. 

Repeated OT and NT Scripture proves that the coming of Christ is climactic. There is absolutely no purpose for a future millennium riddled with sin, death and rebellion.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil.



So? Many premils have found corroboration. You just don't like their results. 

And what Bible verse gives us corroboration for something like the distinction between ruling and teaching elder? Further, what Bible verse says we have to have extra corroboration for each proposition in Scripture, and what verse corroborates that verse?


----------



## RamistThomist

My own broad conclusions on eschatology. 
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/summary-of-reformed-eschatology/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> So? Many premils have found corroboration. You just don't like their results.
> 
> And what Bible verse gives us corroboration for something like the distinction between ruling and teaching elder? Further, what Bible verse says we have to have extra corroboration for each proposition in Scripture, and what verse corroborates that verse?



This is the same reasoning that Mormons give for baptizing the dead. As for your 'ruling and teaching elder' I never advanced such a theory, so I do not know what has to do with the lack of Premil corroboration. Normally when people go there it is because they lack biblical support for their doctrine.

Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that there will be a literal 1,000 years after the Second Coming that is sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted and war-ravaged. Neither Christ, Paul, Peter, Jude nor any other New Testament writer describes one.

The same applies to the Old Testament. John Metcalfe rightly says in relation to the Holy Spirit’s use of the phrase _“a thousand” in the Old Testament, in a booklet ‘Premillennialism Exposed’, “One reads of a thousand hills, a thousand vines, a thousand Philistines, a thousand children of Bigvai, a thousand Ammonites, a thousand spears, a thousand camels, a thousand horses, a thousand chariots, a thousand judges, a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, but never of a thousand years reign, no, not from Genesis to Malachi.”_

And continues, _“One can discover a thousand shields for a thousand Israelites, a thousand cubits and a thousand footmen to traverse them, a thousand talents and a thousand oxen to carry them, a thousand silver pieces and a thousand Edomites to covet them, a thousand baths and a thousand men to bathe in them, but what no one can find, no, not one of a thousand, is a thousand years reign at the end of time with the second coming of Christ preceding this millennial invention.”_

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pilgrim

sovereigngrace said:


> Would you then address the main tenets of Premil and support them with other Scripture? What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil. That is why Premils avoid answering these simple questions.
> 
> Repeated OT and NT Scripture proves that the coming of Christ is climactic. There is absolutely no purpose for a future millennium riddled with sin, death and rebellion.



Every single one of your posts on this board pertains to eschatology, almost all of which are specifically anti-premil.

With all due respect, what many of us have found over the years is that it is not worthwhile attempting to engage with someone who is evidently riding a hobby horse and who appears to have no interest in discussing anything else.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> As for your 'ruling and teaching elder' I never advanced such a theory



My point was that people can make doctrinal claims and yet not have all the infinite corroborations necessary.


sovereigngrace said:


> This is the same reasoning that Mormons give for baptizing the dead



Logical fallacy


sovereigngrace said:


> Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that there will be a literal 1,000 years after the Second Coming that is sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted and war-ravaged. Neither Christ, Paul, Peter, Jude nor any other New Testament writer describes one.



That contradicts your earlier claim when you said I had to have one more corroboration. If there is no text teaching a thousand year reign, then why bother with demanding a corroboration, anyway?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Would you then address the main tenets of Premil and support them with other Scripture? What many of us have found over the years is that there is no corroboration for any of the main tenets of Premil. That is why Premils avoid answering these simple questions.
> 
> Repeated OT and NT Scripture proves that the coming of Christ is climactic. There is absolutely no purpose for a future millennium riddled with sin, death and rebellion.


The one ruled over by Jesus on Earth has no sin, sickness, war, and His morals are those worldwide. Do not see in the Bible the one you described!


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So? Many premils have found corroboration. You just don't like their results.
> 
> And what Bible verse gives us corroboration for something like the distinction between ruling and teaching elder? Further, what Bible verse says we have to have extra corroboration for each proposition in Scripture, and what verse corroborates that verse?


There can be shown many passages, but if the mind of someone is already made up...


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The one ruled over by Jesus on Earth has no sin, sickness, war, and His morals are those worldwide. Do not see in the Bible the one you described!



Who then are all the wicked that rise up as the sand of the sea 1000 years after the second coming to confront Jesus and the glorified saints?


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> My point was that people can make doctrinal claims and yet not have all the infinite corroborations necessary.
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy
> 
> 
> That contradicts your earlier claim when you said I had to have one more corroboration. If there is no text teaching a thousand year reign, then why bother with demanding a corroboration, anyway?



No contradiction. As an Amillennialist, I do not believe that Rev 20 is future. I was asking it from your perspective: where was your corroboration for your belief of such a literal physical future millennial age?

Maybe you could show us who these millions are that populate this supposed future millennial earth that are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Who then are all the wicked that rise up as the sand of the sea 1000 years after the second coming to confront Jesus and the glorified saints?


They would be the lost sinners physically born during the Kingdom Age.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> No contradiction. As an Amillennialist, I do not believe that Rev 20 is future. I was asking it from your perspective: where was your corroboration for your belief of such a literal physical future millennial age?
> 
> Maybe you could show us who these millions are that populate this supposed future millennial earth that are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified?


The first resurrection is the one to glory, while second one is to judgment and is seperated by those 1000 years.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> They would be the lost sinners physically born during the Kingdom Age.



Thanks for responding. So who are the mortals that produce them that survive the wrath of God and yet miss glorification?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The first resurrection is the one to glory, while second one is to judgment and is seperated by those 1000 years.



Thanks for your response.

Corroboration was my main enquiry. I don't see that answered. 

My second request was: "Maybe you could show us who these millions are that populate this supposed future millennial earth that are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified?" I don't see that answered either.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> No contradiction. As an Amillennialist, I do not believe that Rev 20 is future. I was asking it from your perspective: where was your corroboration for your belief of such a literal physical future millennial age?
> 
> Maybe you could show us who these millions are that populate this supposed future millennial earth that are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified?



What denomination are you in?


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> My point was that people can make doctrinal claims and yet not have all the infinite corroborations necessary.



But according to Premills this is the second greatest age in history, outside of the NHNE, and yet Premils seem to lack corroboration for every element of that said period. If what you say is true, then it is not an insignificant age. Why did Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc, not mention it anywhere? Also, why did Jesus continually talk about only 2 ages (and not 3): this age and the age to come? There is no mention of a millennial age. There is no age to come age and then an age to come after the age to come. That to me is confusing.

What is more, all the detail described in Revelation 20 lines up with the detail outlined in the rest of the New Testament relating to our age.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Pilgrim said:


> Every single one of your posts on this board pertains to eschatology, almost all of which are specifically anti-premil.
> 
> With all due respect, what many of us have found over the years is that it is not worthwhile attempting to engage with someone who is evidently riding a hobby horse and who appears to have no interest in discussing anything else.



I didn't know it was wrong to advance Amil here or query Premil.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> I didn't know it was wrong to advance Amil here or query Premil.



No one is saying you can't. But your entire posting has been woefully unbalanced. And methinks you aren't really here to interact, but to use everyone's post as a launching pad for another amil blog post.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one is saying you can't. But your entire posting has been woefully unbalanced. And methinks you aren't really here to interact, but to use everyone's post as a launching pad for another amil blog post.



I hate to burst your bubble, but that was not my purpose. LOL. I was trying to glean answers. I am detecting paranoia here. 

Also, how is it unbalanced. I was simply asking questions. The avoidance to me is more telling!


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> What denomination are you in?



Non-denominational, but Reformed. What church do you go to?


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Non-denominational, but Reformed. What church do you go to?


http://covenantepc.com/


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but that was not my purpose. LOL. I was trying to glean answers. I am detecting paranoia here.
> 
> Also, how is it unbalanced. I was simply asking questions. The avoidance to me is more telling!



No one is avoiding you. I offered initial responses, which then led to about 40 more questions on your part. I decided that probably wasn't the best use of my time.

It comes across as unbalanced because you don't seem to talk about anything else.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one is avoiding you. I offered initial responses, which then led to about 40 more questions on your part. I decided that probably wasn't the best use of my time.
> 
> It comes across as unbalanced because you don't seem to talk about anything else.



So, maybe you could show us who these millions are that populate this supposed future millennial earth that are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified? I don't see that answered.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> So, maybe you could show us who these millions are that populate this supposed future millennial earth that are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified? I don't see that answered.



I think others have answered it on this thread (and about several dozen times on PB). It really isn't that important to me, either way. I got bigger fish to fry at the moment (e.g., Reformed scholastics, translating Hebrew and Greek, reading through Richard Hooker and Peter Martyr Vermigli).


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think others have answered it on this thread (and about several dozen times on PB). It really isn't that important to me, either way. I got bigger fish to fry at the moment (e.g., Reformed scholastics, translating Hebrew and Greek, reading through Richard Hooker and Peter Martyr Vermigli).



For the record, I don't believe it has been answered here. I don't honestly know what Scripture you can bring to the table, especially as all the wicked are destroyed in Rev 19, as elsewhere in Scripture at Christ's return. It was one of several reasons why I abandoned the theory. It is obviously an issue that Premils have to sometime address. Notwithstanding, I respect your right to avoid.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> For the record, I don't believe it has been answered here. I don't honestly know what Scripture you can bring to the table, especially as all the wicked are destroyed in Rev 19, as elsewhere in Scripture at Christ's return. It was one of several reasons why I abandoned the theory. It is obviously an issue that Premils have to sometime address. Notwithstanding, I respect your right to avoid.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion.



Nothing wrong with asking the questions. We've just spent hundreds and hundreds of posts on this board over the years on exactly the same questions.

Now, what would be interesting is if you listed a bibliography of eschatological works that you have critically interacted with. Sometimes new questions come up there.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Nothing wrong with asking the questions. We've just spent hundreds and hundreds of posts on this board over the years on exactly the same questions.
> 
> Now, what would be interesting is if you listed a bibliography of eschatological works that you have critically interacted with. Sometimes new questions come up there.


I think that we here all agree that the Dr MacArthur version of premil us wrong, but historical premil was the standard position before Augustine made Anil the prominent viewpoint, and there have been noted Reformed and Baptists that have held to it over history of the Church.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> For the record, I don't believe it has been answered here. I don't honestly know what Scripture you can bring to the table, especially as all the wicked are destroyed in Rev 19, as elsewhere in Scripture at Christ's return. It was one of several reasons why I abandoned the theory. It is obviously an issue that Premils have to sometime address. Notwithstanding, I respect your right to avoid.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion.


When did chapter 20 Happen then?When did glorified saints rule with Christ, as cannot be glorified until second coming?


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Nothing wrong with asking the questions. We've just spent hundreds and hundreds of posts on this board over the years on exactly the same questions.
> 
> Now, what would be interesting is if you listed a bibliography of eschatological works that you have critically interacted with. Sometimes new questions come up there.



Thanks for your response.

Since 2000 I took a greater interest in eschatology, starting to write a book in support of Premil. My premise was supporting Scripture with Scripture. I felt corroboration was often ignored on eschatology and held the key to understanding Rev and other disputed passages. Both the OT and the NT emphasize the importance of 2 or 3 witnesses. 15 years as a Police Officer in Northern Ireland reinforced the importance of corroboration to me. After 6 months of writing with (I believe) an open mind, I changed my position to Amil.

After I arrived at position, I have read over 300 works from every different angle on the subject. I am still studying. There are too many to list.

I have different books at different stages of completion on this subject. Corroboration to me is what forbids Premil.

It is not my desire to derail this thread talking about me, but rather eschatology.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> I think that we here all agree that the Dr MacArthur version of premil us wrong, but historical premil was the standard position before Augustine made Anil the prominent viewpoint, and there have been noted Reformed and Baptists that have held to it over history of the Church.



I appreciate your response.

While I agree re MacArthur, I have to disagree re the ECFs. Most Premils make that boast but have never examined it for themselves. I have found the opposite to be the truth. Classic Premil does not have one single advocate in the 1st 100 years after the cross. We do not have one single clear or obscure quote teaching any of the following Premillennial fundamentals in the first 100 years after the cross (apart from Papias holding to point 1):

1. The very mention of a future 1000 years.
2. The elevation of natural Israel to their old covenant place of favour over all other nations.
3. The restoring of Israel back to her ancient borders.
4. The return of the whole old covenant arrangement.
5. The rebuilding of a brick temple in earthly Jerusalem.
6. The restarting of the mass slaughter of innocent animals on the new earth.
7. The resuscitation of the ancient old covenant priesthood again in a future millennium.
8. Christ’s kingship and kingly reign being suspended until the second coming.
9. The multiplication of carnal pleasures on a future new earth, involving excessive gluttony and the proliferation of procreation in the age to come.
10. The final removal of Satan from heaven at the second coming.
11. The binding of Satan at the second coming.
12. His placement in the abyss for 1000 years after the second coming.
13. The release of Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming.
14. The revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium.
15. Sin continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
15. Corruption continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
17. The wicked inheriting a future millennial earth.
18. Mortals inheriting a future millennial earth.
19. Decay continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
20. The curse continuing unabated on a future millennial earth.
21. Satan operating on a future new earth.

Papias is the closest to a modern day Premil, but he advances only one of the above. As we examine the next 100 years (AD130-230), the Chiliasm advanced had more in common with modern day Amillennialism than Historic or Dispensational Premil. There is far more agreement between Postmils and Amils, than ancient Chiliasts and Modern Premils.

Barnabas is claimed by some Premils, but he was actually an Amil.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> When did chapter 20 Happen then?When did glorified saints rule with Christ, as cannot be glorified until second coming?



I believe Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). Positionally, we have our part in His life, death, resurrection, ascension and glorious reign through regeneration - being "in Christ." This means the lake of fire (the second death) has no claim over us. Our sin was buried with Christ and when He arose we arose. He was our representative. He was our substitute. The company that have their “part” in the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 are all those that are spiritually raised “in Christ” from the grave of their sin.

Romans 6:4 says, “we are buried with him by baptism into death.”

Colossians 2:12 agrees, saying, we are “Buried with him in baptism.”

Romans 6:4 says, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Colossians 2:12 again concurs, saying, “ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

Satan cannot stop the enlightenment of the Gentiles as before. The restraint simply relates to the Gospel advance to the Gentiles. They were once enveloped in darkness before the first resurrection, now a bright light has been shining for 2000 years saving countless millions throughout the nations. And there is absolutely nothing Satan can do prevent the invasion of his territory. He cannot deceive "the nations" (Gentiles) because we now have the truth as a result of the church expansion into the nations.

We should note in Rev 20:3, the enlightening of the Gentiles (or) ethnos is carefully connected to the first resurrection of Christ. It is only through this powerful event that the deception that smothered the Gentiles was lifted. Moreover, the binding of Satan is expressly connected to the enlightenment of the Gentiles (or) ethnos.

The Church currently exists in its heavenly authority procured for them by Christ who has already defeated every enemy. The introduction of the kingdom of God through Christ’s earthly ministry saw the beginning of Christ’s assault upon the global control of Satan. It is through the finished work of Calvary that the Church now walks in victory. The responsibility of the Church is to simply enter into the reality of that great eternal work by faith. We reside on a far higher spiritual plane than this sin-cursed earth, namely in the throne-room of God. Abiding there ensures we walk by His will, His commands and His blueprint rather than our own carnal desires.

Please read Romans 5:17, “For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”

Ephesians 1:3 also supports, saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

Ephesians 2:5-6, says, speaking of God, “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

This is obviously speaking of salvation. Now that we are born from above we are counted as spiritually reigning with Christ.

Romans 8:16-18 says, “The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified with [him].”

As we can see, we are currently "joint-heirs with Christ." We reign because He reigns. When we put on Christ in salvation we entered into His kingdom and therefore came under His kingship, which resulted in us being placed in heavenly authority with kingly robes. The elect of God today “are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20). The reason being, “he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The Greek word for “heir” is kleronomos meaning ‘getting by apportionment’, it can be interpreted ‘an inheritor or a possessor’. This is what happens upon salvation, we were adopted into the family of God and became one with Christ, whereupon, through Christ, we assumed a heavenly inheritance.

God exercises divine power over all creation and He exercise His divine through His new creation. The people of God carry incredible authority of His children. They are on this earth to evade Satan’s territory, curtail his efforts, overcome his power and plunder his house,

John says in Revelation 1:5-6, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made (aorist active indicative) us kings and priests unto God and his father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.”

1 Peter 2:9 says of the Church presently – intra-Advent, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal (or kingly) priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

Is it just in life? Is it not also in death?

That reigns occurs both in life and in death. It will also last for all eternity on the new earth when Jesus comes. Then the throne of God descends unto the perfected new earth.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Both the OT and the NT emphasize the importance of 2 or 3 witnesses.



That's almost always in a judicial context. For example, I believe that the earth was created ex nihilo, but outside of Hebrews there isn't direct support for that specific proposition. It's not a foolproof methodology.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's almost always in a judicial context. For example, I believe that the earth was created ex nihilo, but outside of Hebrews there isn't direct support for that specific proposition. It's not a foolproof methodology.



First, I once again disagree with your example attempting to refute corroboration. The important issue is that God created the earth and all that is in it by speaking it into existence. There are multiple Scriptures to support that. To most of us, we accept that fact by faith.

Second, most Christians are aware of the crucial mandate of 2 Peter 1:20: “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” When someone takes one Scripture and makes it contradicts numerous other Scripture you know that their understanding of that text is wrong.

The problem we have today across the board when it comes to doctrine is: Christians try to force their theology into a text rather than letting the Scripture speak for itself.

Premil (in my opinion) is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter 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.

We build Scripture upon Scripture in order to piece God’s truth together. We embrace the full gamut of Holy Writ. We do not limit our understanding of a future time-line to one chapter or one book. That would be insane.

Interpreting a text to the exclusion of other relevant Scripture is censured here. Imposing your bias school of thought on a Scripture text is wrong. That is private interpretation. It should be supported by other clear and repeated Scriptures. After all, there is a harmony to all truth. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. If we employ this interpretive rule, I believe, one cannot but arrive at any other conclusion than the coming of Christ is climactic and ushers in eternity.

2 Corinthians 13:1 highlights a divine evidential imperative, which if ignored will bring Bible students into all forms of false teaching. It states, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” 

This important principle was decreed of God throughout the Old Testament in order to corroborate evidence in the case of witnesses - to prove matters of evidence. It is also presented in the New Testament time as the criteria for establishing truth. 

1 Corinthians 2:13 says, “the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

God expects us to compare Scripture with Scripture – the spiritual with the spiritual. Scripture is the supreme and absolute means for interpreting other Scripture.

If ever there is a passage in the Word of God that needs to be examined and understood in the light of the plain, simple teaching found elsewhere within the canon of Scripture, it is the much-debated symbolic narrative of Revelation 20.

All sensible theologians believe that Scripture must interpret Scripture. This is where Premillennialism falls apart. They have absolutely no scriptural corroborate for their interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the all-consummating Second Advent. Likewise, they have absolutely no corroboration for their notion of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct judgment days separated by 1000 years. Also, nothing to support their interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two physical resurrections (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years. I could go on and on.


----------



## RamistThomist

tl;dr

You mentioned that you read 300 books on eschatology. Could you provide us book reviews of the most notable counters to your position and show where their arguments aren't truth-preserving?

It's also interesting that you came on PB to attack premillennialism. There are maybe 3 premils on it. I am one of them but I waver sometimes. I agree with Michael Heiser: every eschatological system cheats to make it work.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> I believe Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). Positionally, we have our part in His life, death, resurrection, ascension and glorious reign through regeneration - being "in Christ." This means the lake of fire (the second death) has no claim over us. Our sin was buried with Christ and when He arose we arose. He was our representative. He was our substitute. The company that have their “part” in the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 are all those that are spiritually raised “in Christ” from the grave of their sin.
> 
> Romans 6:4 says, “we are buried with him by baptism into death.”
> 
> Colossians 2:12 agrees, saying, we are “Buried with him in baptism.”
> 
> Romans 6:4 says, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
> 
> Colossians 2:12 again concurs, saying, “ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
> 
> Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.
> 
> Satan cannot stop the enlightenment of the Gentiles as before. The restraint simply relates to the Gospel advance to the Gentiles. They were once enveloped in darkness before the first resurrection, now a bright light has been shining for 2000 years saving countless millions throughout the nations. And there is absolutely nothing Satan can do prevent the invasion of his territory. He cannot deceive "the nations" (Gentiles) because we now have the truth as a result of the church expansion into the nations.
> 
> We should note in Rev 20:3, the enlightening of the Gentiles (or) ethnos is carefully connected to the first resurrection of Christ. It is only through this powerful event that the deception that smothered the Gentiles was lifted. Moreover, the binding of Satan is expressly connected to the enlightenment of the Gentiles (or) ethnos.
> 
> The Church currently exists in its heavenly authority procured for them by Christ who has already defeated every enemy. The introduction of the kingdom of God through Christ’s earthly ministry saw the beginning of Christ’s assault upon the global control of Satan. It is through the finished work of Calvary that the Church now walks in victory. The responsibility of the Church is to simply enter into the reality of that great eternal work by faith. We reside on a far higher spiritual plane than this sin-cursed earth, namely in the throne-room of God. Abiding there ensures we walk by His will, His commands and His blueprint rather than our own carnal desires.
> 
> Please read Romans 5:17, “For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”
> 
> Ephesians 1:3 also supports, saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”
> 
> Ephesians 2:5-6, says, speaking of God, “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
> 
> This is obviously speaking of salvation. Now that we are born from above we are counted as spiritually reigning with Christ.
> 
> Romans 8:16-18 says, “The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified with [him].”
> 
> As we can see, we are currently "joint-heirs with Christ." We reign because He reigns. When we put on Christ in salvation we entered into His kingdom and therefore came under His kingship, which resulted in us being placed in heavenly authority with kingly robes. The elect of God today “are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20). The reason being, “he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
> 
> The Greek word for “heir” is kleronomos meaning ‘getting by apportionment’, it can be interpreted ‘an inheritor or a possessor’. This is what happens upon salvation, we were adopted into the family of God and became one with Christ, whereupon, through Christ, we assumed a heavenly inheritance.
> 
> God exercises divine power over all creation and He exercise His divine through His new creation. The people of God carry incredible authority of His children. They are on this earth to evade Satan’s territory, curtail his efforts, overcome his power and plunder his house,
> 
> John says in Revelation 1:5-6, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made (aorist active indicative) us kings and priests unto God and his father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.”
> 
> 1 Peter 2:9 says of the Church presently – intra-Advent, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal (or kingly) priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”
> 
> Is it just in life? Is it not also in death?
> 
> That reigns occurs both in life and in death. It will also last for all eternity on the new earth when Jesus comes. Then the throne of God descends unto the perfected new earth.





sovereigngrace said:


> First, I once again disagree with your example attempting to refute corroboration. The important issue is that God created the earth and all that is in it by speaking it into existence. There are multiple Scriptures to support that. To most of us, we accept that fact by faith.
> 
> Second, most Christians are aware of the crucial mandate of 2 Peter 1:20: “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” When someone takes one Scripture and makes it contradicts numerous other Scripture you know that their understanding of that text is wrong.
> 
> The problem we have today across the board when it comes to doctrine is: Christians try to force their theology into a text rather than letting the Scripture speak for itself.
> 
> Premil (in my opinion) is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter 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.
> 
> We build Scripture upon Scripture in order to piece God’s truth together. We embrace the full gamut of Holy Writ. We do not limit our understanding of a future time-line to one chapter or one book. That would be insane.
> 
> Interpreting a text to the exclusion of other relevant Scripture is censured here. Imposing your bias school of thought on a Scripture text is wrong. That is private interpretation. It should be supported by other clear and repeated Scriptures. After all, there is a harmony to all truth. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. If we employ this interpretive rule, I believe, one cannot but arrive at any other conclusion than the coming of Christ is climactic and ushers in eternity.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 13:1 highlights a divine evidential imperative, which if ignored will bring Bible students into all forms of false teaching. It states, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
> 
> This important principle was decreed of God throughout the Old Testament in order to corroborate evidence in the case of witnesses - to prove matters of evidence. It is also presented in the New Testament time as the criteria for establishing truth.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:13 says, “the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
> 
> God expects us to compare Scripture with Scripture – the spiritual with the spiritual. Scripture is the supreme and absolute means for interpreting other Scripture.
> 
> If ever there is a passage in the Word of God that needs to be examined and understood in the light of the plain, simple teaching found elsewhere within the canon of Scripture, it is the much-debated symbolic narrative of Revelation 20.
> 
> All sensible theologians believe that Scripture must interpret Scripture. This is where Premillennialism falls apart. They have absolutely no scriptural corroborate for their interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the all-consummating Second Advent. Likewise, they have absolutely no corroboration for their notion of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct judgment days separated by 1000 years. Also, nothing to support their interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two physical resurrections (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years. I could go on and on.


Whst authors on Premil position for Revelation have you read then?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> tl;dr
> 
> You mentioned that you read 300 books on eschatology. Could you provide us book reviews of the most notable counters to your position and show where their arguments aren't truth-preserving?
> 
> It's also interesting that you came on PB to attack premillennialism. There are maybe 3 premils on it. I am one of them but I waiver sometimes. I agree with Michael Heiser: every eschatological system cheats to make it work.


Historical premil has been held by some prominent Reformed authors, like Spurgeon and Boice, so not as slam dunk as he leads on.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Historical premil gas been held by some prominent Reformed authors, like Spurgeon and Noice, do not as slam dunk as he leads on.



To be fair, it's been held by a few. Very few, though some of the names are prominent. We shouldn't press the case beyond the evidence.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> tl;dr
> 
> You mentioned that you read 300 books on eschatology. Could you provide us book reviews of the most notable counters to your position and show where their arguments aren't truth-preserving?
> 
> It's also interesting that you came on PB to attack premillennialism. There are maybe 3 premils on it. I am one of them but I waiver sometimes. I agree with Michael Heiser: every eschatological system cheats to make it work.



I see that you are both determined to derail this thread and sidetrack this discussion away from Scripture. I am not going to bite the bait. It is suffice to say: your refusal or inability to address some basic biblical queries testify to the non-corroborative nature of Premil. That might be a reason why so few posters here hold to the theory.

If you want notified when I do publish on this subject, I would be happy to email you. I have 19 years of research and still digging. My argument has never been who or who does not hold to one given position, albeit the vast bulk of Reformed writers since the Reformation have held to a climactic coming of Christ. My intent was to request corroboration, something that has not been forthcoming from any of the 3 of you.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> To be fair, it's been held by a few. Very few, though some of the names are prominent. We shouldn't press the case beyond the evidence.


I agree, but it was once the prominent held position within early Church, and its Dispensational view that was a recent development, but Historical view predates even A Mil view of his!


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> I agree, but it was once the prominent held position within early Church, and its Dispensational view that was a recent development, but Historical view predates even A Mil view of his!



That is incorrect. Amil was the prevailing school for the first 400 years after the cross. The Historic Premil term is a recent innovation to differentiate it from the error of Dispensationalism. Ancient Chiliasm was closer to Amil than modern day Premil views. I see that you bring zero evidence to the table to prove your suppositions.

Lactantius was the first classic "orthodox" Premil. His writings are called the "Divine Institutes." He was from Africa and lived around 250 - 317 AD). So where did Lactanius received his theology? Lactantius notably doesn't use Scripture either to support his idea of a future millennium but 'the Sibyl'. The Sibyl was a woman who prophesied while in a state of frenzy under the supposed inspiration of a deity. What she spoke was said to carry the authority of Scripture - thus Lactantius builds his arguments on her prophecies.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> That is incorrect. Amil was the prevailing school for the first 400 years after the cross. The Historic Premil term is a recent innovation to differentiate it from the error of Dispensationalism. Ancient Chiliasm was closer to Amil than modern day Premil views. I see that you bring zero evidence to the table to prove your suppositions.
> 
> Lactantius was the first classic "orthodox" Premil. His writings are called the "Divine Institutes." He was from Africa and lived around 250 - 317 AD). So where did Lactanius received his theology? Lactantius notably doesn't use Scripture either to support his idea of a future millennium but 'the Sibyl'. The Sibyl was a woman who prophesied while in a state of frenzy under the supposed inspiration of a deity. What she spoke was said to carry the authority of Scripture - thus Lactantius builds his arguments on her prophecies.


The Messianic Age would be the time when Messiah reigns, whole earth under law of God, no more war/famines/all would know and obey true God. When has that happened in history? That Age isnot the same as the Eternal State ...


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The Messianic Age would be the time when Messiah reigns, whole earth under law of God, no more war/famines/all would know and obey true God. When has that happened in history? That Age isnot the same as the Eternal State ...



... and where exactly in Rev 20 does it predict that?

Anyway, the Messianic period commenced with the earthly ministry of Messiah 2000 years ago.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> It is suffice to say: your refusal or inability to address some basic biblical queries testify to the non-corroborative nature of Premil.




Not really. It's just that your earlier responses showed you were more interested in giving long discourses about amillennialism (which we already know) than about interacting.

The other part of my "inability" is that I don't really hold to premil as a system. I agree with some pre-wrath guys on Greek exegesis of certain passages, but I don't go for one system.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> ... and where exactly in Rev 20 does it predict that?
> 
> Anyway, the Messianic period commenced with the earthly ministry of Messiah 2000 years ago.


When were the passages about God being worshipped by all nations and people?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not really. It's just that your earlier responses showed you were more interested in giving long discourses about amillennialism (which we already know) than about interacting.
> 
> The other part of my "inability" is that I don't really hold to premil as a system. I agree with some pre-wrath guys on Greek exegesis of certain passages, but I don't go for one system.


What is pre wrath?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> When were the passages about God being worshipped by all nations and people?



The Gospel has gone out to the nations, as the OT prophets, Christ and the NT writers predicted. Those Gentiles who have eyes to see and ears to hear have been embracing Christ for 2000 years, and have given Him suitable worship.

The woman of Samaria said unto Jesus, in John 4:19-24, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” (vv 19-20). 

The woman makes a very true statement here in relation to the place of Jewish worship. However, things were about to change from the time of Christ on.

Christ replied, “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (vv 21-24).

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> What is pre wrath?



I've gone over this with you before, but here it is
https://www.alankurschner.com/


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> The Gospel has gone out to the nations, as the OT prophets, Christ and the NT writers predicted. Those Gentiles who have eyes to see and ears to hear have been embracing Christ for 2000 years, and have given Him suitable worship.
> 
> The woman of Samaria said unto Jesus, in John 4:19-24, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” (vv 19-20).
> 
> The woman makes a very true statement here in relation to the place of Jewish worship. However, things were about to change from the time of Christ on.
> 
> Christ replied, “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (vv 21-24).


You would hold to postmil then, as through church God brings in the Messianic Era?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> You would hold to postmil then, as through church God brings in the Messianic Era?



Amils and many modern-day Postmils believe that Christ's first advent ushered in the Messianic Era, and that it is synonymous with the "last days" (so anticipated by the prophets) and 'the millennial period'.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Amils and many modern-day Postmils believe that Christ's first advent ushered in the Messianic Era, and that it is synonymous with the "last days" (so anticipated by the prophets) and 'the millennial period'.


Scripture seems to see the Messianic Age though as being direct reigning of Jesus Himself right here upon the Earth.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Scripture seems to see the Messianic Age though as being direct reigning of Jesus Himself right here upon the Earth.



Where do you get that in Rev 20?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Where do you get that in Rev 20?


The saints that were killed by Antichrist were resurrected and reigned and ruled with Him on earth at his returning.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The saints that were killed by Antichrist were resurrected and reigned and ruled with Him on earth at his returning.



But how do glorified saints produce mortal offspring? This doesn't make sense. Remember, the wicked overwhelm your supposed future Premil blissful millennium as the sand of the sea and surround the saints at the end? Where do they come from? Are you saying that these are glorified saints change allegiance from Christ to Satan and lose their salvation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> When did chapter 20 Happen then?When did glorified saints rule with Christ, as cannot be glorified until second coming?



Where in Rev 20 does it depict glorified saints?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Where in Rev 20 does it depict glorified saints?


They were in the first resurrection, which is where all receive glorified state!


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Most premils say earth. They didn't die in the major battles between Rev. 19 and 20.
> 
> 
> To be fair to premils, they aren't interpreting the post-Rev 19 Battle events as "wrath of God." At least not in the Great White Throne sense.



The reality is, Rev 19 is climactic, like every other second coming passage. It forbids your scenario. Christ is seen pouring out His wrath without mixture upon the nations as He smites them in His fury with “a sharp sword” that comes “out of his mouth.” What is the result of this act? It shall “smite the nations” that have missed the catching away. This is what awaits the nations. They are going to be smitten. The word for “smite” in this text is the Greek word _patasso_, which means to strike with a weapon or to smite fatally. It means to smite down, cut down, to kill, slay.

He is Coming to smite down the nations, not corral them into some sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age. It says that “he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” This is not a pretty sight. This is not loose talk by God. This is not something that the nations should look forward to. What awaits the nations that have rejected Christ is utter destruction and devastation. The nations left behind are totally destroyed. Christ destroys them by the very utterance of His mouth.

The two words interpreted “fierceness” and “wrath” here are _thumos _and _orge _which are regularly employed in the New Testament to mean ‘fierceness, indignation, wrath and vengeance’. The word orge carries the additional meaning of ‘violent passion’. Clearly the Lord is not happy with those left behind. Like those left behind in Noah’s day and Sodom they face an awful end, as they receive the reward of their rejection of Christ.

Verses 17-18 says, “I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. The_ loipoy _(or remaining ones) those left behind were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”
This is complete wholesale total destruction - for those left behind. There are no survivors!

The feasting part of the marriage supper of the Lamb is a symbolism depicted the destruction of the wicked. Why can this not be a symbolic depiction of the return of Christ and the events that accompany it (including the destruction of the wicked)?

The first part of the narrative outlines a detailed account of the assignment given to “the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven” by the heavenly messenger. The “fowls” are instructed to “come and gather” themselves “together unto the supper of the great God” in order that they would “eat”:

1. The flesh of kings,
2. The flesh of captains,
3. The flesh of mighty men,
4. The flesh of horses, them that sit on them,
5. The flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

This passage powerfully and solemnly reveals the full extent of the devastation that is to be focused upon the wicked on the day of God’s wrath. In perfect keeping with the rest of Scripture, this narrative graphically shows us that the destruction that occurs will be immediate, absolute and total and that, at this stage – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7) – everyone left behind will be completely consumed; the birds of heaven filling themselves with “the flesh of all men.” Significantly, the suffix “both free and bond, both small and great” is added in order to fully impress the enormity and all-inclusive nature of this feast.

The whole thrust of this reading surrounds a climactic end to the world. Like the rest of Scripture, it records the complete rescue of the saints in the “marriage of the lamb” and the complete destruction of the wicked when the fowls consume the entire wicked left behind. The passage makes no allowance for goats-survivors in this great destruction passage or mortals squeezing into a supposed future millennium. This reading seems to fit in with the scriptural pattern of an all-consummating Coming - all the wicked being consumed.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> They were in the first resurrection, which is where all receive glorified state!



The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So, which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection?

Which is the foremost resurrection in time?

Which is the foremost resurrection in place?

Which is the foremost resurrection in order?

Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

Who is "the first resurrection" in Acts 26:23?

Who is "the firstborn from the dead" in Colossians 1:18?

Who is "the firstfruits of them that slept" in 1 Corinthians 15:20?

Who is "first begotten of the dead" in Revelation 1:5?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So, which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection?
> 
> Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
> 
> Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
> 
> Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
> 
> Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?
> 
> Who is "the first resurrection" in Acts 26:23?
> 
> Who is "the firstborn from the dead" in Colossians 1:18?
> 
> Who is "the firstfruits of them that slept" in 1 Corinthians 15:20?
> 
> Who is "first begotten of the dead" in Revelation 1:5?


The resurrection of the saints happen at Second Coming, do first resurrection if Jesus and also includes His redeemed!


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The resurrection of the saints happen at Second Coming, do first resurrection if Jesus and also includes His redeemed!



The Christian has a _meros_ or “part” in “the first resurrection.” The phrase “that hath part” proves we are looking at our positional involvement in Christ's first resurrection. That comes through being “in Christ.”

Through Christ’s life, death and resurrection we are delivered from eternal punishment (the second death). This is the only resurrection that spares the entire redeemed community from the horrors of the Lake of Fire. 

Our participation in this hope is active and ongoing; it is not merely a future hope at His Coming. 1 Peter 1:3-5 confirms this, saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Romans 6:9-11 tells us: “Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Paul connects the physical death and resurrection of Christ to man’s salvation. We take part in His resurrection by first identifying ourselves with Him in being considered dead unto sin (which is repentance – a turning away from sin) and alive unto God through faith. He equates his death to self and spiritual resurrection unto eternal life unto the transaction that Christ procured 2,000 years ago.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> The Christian has a _meros_ or “part” in “the first resurrection.” The phrase “that hath part” proves we are looking at our positional involvement in Christ's first resurrection. That comes through being “in Christ.”
> 
> Through Christ’s life, death and resurrection we are delivered from eternal punishment (the second death). This is the only resurrection that spares the entire redeemed community from the horrors of the Lake of Fire.
> 
> Our participation in this hope is active and ongoing; it is not merely a future hope at His Coming. 1 Peter 1:3-5 confirms this, saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
> 
> Romans 6:9-11 tells us: “Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
> 
> Paul connects the physical death and resurrection of Christ to man’s salvation. We take part in His resurrection by first identifying ourselves with Him in being considered dead unto sin (which is repentance – a turning away from sin) and alive unto God through faith. He equates his death to self and spiritual resurrection unto eternal life unto the transaction that Christ procured 2,000 years ago.


Per John, our blessed hope is the second coming, when we are raised up with Christ, and reign with Him.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Per John, our blessed hope is the second coming, when we are raised up with Christ, and reign with Him.



How does that address or rebut what I was saying? We must be spiritually raised up "in Christ" (His first resurrection) in order for us to experience the second physical resurrection of the just. 

Are you suggesting that physical resurrection rather than spiritual resurrection is the actual means by which men escape eternal punishment?

Romans 6:4 says, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Colossians 2:12 again concurs, saying, “ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

Man is spiritually dead prior to conversion; he must therefore be spiritually raised. The spiritual life that we enter into in this life by the resurrection power of Christ will be the very power that brings us into the final resurrection state.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> Per John, our blessed hope is the second coming, when we are raised up with Christ, and reign with Him.


David,
In a lot (most?) Of your posts you assert what needs to be proved. You assume/presuppose wooden literal categories and wonder why people disagree.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> David,
> In a lot (most?) Of your posts you assert what needs to be proved. You assume/presuppose wooden literal categories and wonder why people disagree.


How is it wooden? John ties the second coming to when we shall be raised up in like fashion as Jesus, and Paul agrees with him, as both tied our resurrection in a glorified state at time of second coming event.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> How does that address or rebut what I was saying? We must be spiritually raised up "in Christ" (His first resurrection) in order for us to experience the second physical resurrection of the just.
> 
> Are you suggesting that physical resurrection rather than spiritual resurrection is the actual means by which men escape eternal punishment?
> 
> Romans 6:4 says, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
> 
> Colossians 2:12 again concurs, saying, “ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
> 
> Man is spiritually dead prior to conversion; he must therefore be spiritually raised. The spiritual life that we enter into in this life by the resurrection power of Christ will be the very power that brings us into the final resurrection state.


Both John and Paul affirms to us that the physical resurrection will occur at Second Coming, as that is what is meant by the First Resurrection.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Both John and Paul affirms to us that the physical resurrection will occur at Second Coming, as that is what is meant by the First Resurrection.



I have showed you what the NT identifies the "first resurrection" as. You choose to ignore that, and just repeat what you believe, notably without scriptural support. That is frustrating to engage with. You also ignore question after question that challenges the Premil position. I will take your avoidance, and failure to furnish supporting Scripture, as an acknowledgment that your doctrine lacks biblical corroboration.

What is more, you fail to acknowledge that there are 2 resurrections pertaining to the believer in Scripture, and the first is not physical resurrection at the second coming, it is a spiritual resurrection. It is that alone that gives us victory over the second death.

Is the resurrection mentioned throughout the Word of God that delivers us from eternal punishment (the second death), physical or spiritual?

Where does the New Testament teach that the physical resurrection is the actual means of delivering us from the second death?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> I have showed you what the NT identifies the "first resurrection" as. You choose to ignore that, and just repeat what you believe, notably without scriptural support. That is frustrating to engage with. You also ignore question after question that challenges the Premil position. I will take your avoidance, and failure to furnish supporting Scripture, as an acknowledgment that your doctrine lacks biblical corroboration.
> 
> What is more, you fail to acknowledge that there are 2 resurrections pertaining to the believer in Scripture, and the first is not physical resurrection at the second coming, it is a spiritual resurrection. It is that alone that gives us victory over the second death.
> 
> Is the resurrection mentioned throughout the Word of God that delivers us from eternal punishment (the second death), physical or spiritual?
> 
> Where does the New Testament teach that the physical resurrection is the actual means of delivering us from the second death?


Paul tells us I 1 Corinthians 15 that we shsll be raised up in same physical resurrection as Jesus did, and ties that to being at Second Coming, as did John in both 1 John and Revelation 20!


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Paul tells us I 1 Corinthians 15 that we shsll be raised up in same physical resurrection as Jesus did, and ties that to being at Second Coming, as did John in both 1 John and Revelation 20!



You are dodging the issue. For you to answer the questions would negate your argument.

All sides agree that there is a physical resurrection of all believers at the second coming. What you are missing, and so is Premil, is that other clear Scripture shows "the first resurrection" to be Christ's glorious conquering of the grave. We see that "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5) relates to what Christ secured 2000 years ago. What is more, you are careful to avoid the fact that "the first resurrection" that believers experienced is actually spiritual not physical. Finally, you ignore the fact that spiritual resurrection is the only resurrection that is said to give us victory over the second death.

Jesus said in John 5:24: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

He continues in the next verse (John 5:25): “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”

Jesus said in John 6:50-51, 54&58: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread,he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life … he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

John 8:51 Christ said to the Pharisees, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death … If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death (or experience the second death).”

Jesus said in John 10:27-28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (or experience the second death), neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (or experience the second death).”

Revelation 20:6 says the exact same, speaking of the same salvation, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> You are dodging the issue. For you to answer the questions would negate your argument.
> 
> All sides agree that there is a physical resurrection of all believers at the second coming. What you are missing, and so is Premil, is that other clear Scripture shows "the first resurrection" to be Christ's glorious conquering of the grave. We see that "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5) relates to what Christ secured 2000 years ago. What is more, you are careful to avoid the fact that "the first resurrection" that believers experienced is actually spiritual not physical. Finally, you ignore the fact that spiritual resurrection is the only resurrection that is said to give us victory over the second death.
> 
> Jesus said in John 5:24: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
> 
> He continues in the next verse (John 5:25): “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”
> 
> Jesus said in John 6:50-51, 54&58: “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread,he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life … he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”
> 
> John 8:51 Christ said to the Pharisees, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death … If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death (or experience the second death).”
> 
> Jesus said in John 10:27-28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish (or experience the second death), neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
> 
> Jesus says, in John 11:25, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (or experience the second death).”
> 
> Revelation 20:6 says the exact same, speaking of the same salvation, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”


Thise included in the First resurrection were beheaded and killed for cause of Christ, so that would be a physical resurrection there!


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Thise included in the First resurrection were beheaded and killed for cause of Christ, so that would be a physical resurrection there!



Can you give Scripture to support your theories instead of doctrinal soundbites?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Can you give Scripture to support your theories instead of doctrinal soundbites?


Sure, 1corinthians 15, 1 John 3, Revelation 20, and 2 Thessalonians 4.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Sure, 1corinthians 15, 1 John 3, Revelation 20, and 2 Thessalonians 4.



LOL. You cannot even give exact references!!! All these chapters prove that there will be a general resurrection when Jesus comes.

What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?

Where in Scripture does it mention "resurrection days" (plural), pertaining to the end?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> LOL. You cannot even give exact references!!! All these prove that there will be a general resurrection when Jesus comes.
> 
> What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
> 
> Where in Scripture does it mention "resurrection days" (plural), pertaining to the end?


There is a time being regferenced between the saved in Christ being raised up, and the lost for the GWT....


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> There is a time being regferenced between the saved in Christ being raised up, and the lost for the GWT....



What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> There is a time being regferenced between the saved in Christ being raised up, and the lost for the GWT....



Everything you present to support your opinion revolves around one chapter. You have presented zero corroboration yet. Your motto of biblical interpretation is: "what saith Rev 20." Amils stand with Paul in his wise motto in Romans 4:3 "what saith the scripture?"


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Your motto of biblical interpretation is: "what saith Rev 20." Amils stand with Paul in his wise motto in Romans 4:3 "what saith the scripture?"


All based upon you understanding of the First resurrection meaning when saved, but the Apostles and Jesus tied that into the physical Resurrection. The saved and lost will not be raised up at same time.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?


The literal sense of the term chosen by John to use there for the duration of time? Jesus stated that His Apostles shall each sit upon throne judging Israel, when will that happen?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The literal sense of the term chosen by John to use there for the duration of time?



What do you mean? What "literal sense"? You are very hard to follow!



Dachaser said:


> Jesus stated that His Apostles shall each sit upon throne judging Israel, when will that happen?



... and what does that indicate that is contrary to what Amils believe? It reinforces the general judgment when Jesus comes.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> All based upon you understanding of the First resurrection meaning when saved, but the Apostles and Jesus tied that into the physical Resurrection. The saved and lost will not be raised up at same time.



Why if the rest of Scripture depicts Jesus Christ as the first resurrection (the first to conquer the grave) would the book of Revelation suddenly change track and suddenly make the resurrection of the just 2000 years+ later at the Second Coming “the first resurrection”? This just doesn’t add up. It creates contradictions in the Scripture. It has Scripture in conflict with other Scripture. It overrides a commonly accepted fundamental biblical truth that Jesus Christ is the first resurrection. It also brings much confusion, something that does not pertain to Holy Writ. The reality is it enjoys absolutely no corroboration from other Scripture.

You impose a private interpretation on Rev 20 that enjoys zero corroboration, and which flies in the face of repeated Scripture to the contrary.

In Christ’s description of the resurrection He depict a unitary event, albeit the elect precede the wicked. Jesus explains in John 5:28-29, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth.” Evidently there is only one resurrection albeit involving two separated aspects: “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

The righteous and wicked dead all rise in response to the same sovereign voice - Christ's. There is no 1,000 years’ separation mentioned or hinted at in here.

There is one physical resurrection day in which there are two types of raising, (1) unto life, (2) unto damnation. Acts 24:15 says, “there shall be a resurrection of the dead (singular), both of the just and unjust.”

This verse speaks of a singular “resurrection of the dead” not multiple resurrections (plural) of the dead as the Premillennialist would try and intimate. The fact that Paul differentiates between the wicked and the righteous in no way proves that these are two separate resurrections coming at the end of two separate ages split by 1,000 years+ of history (filled with all the produce of the curse – sin, death and corruption). No, it simply demonstrates that there are two types of resurrection in the one final resurrection of the dead at the end. In fact, for Premils to insist on their concept is to force something into the passage that doesn’t truly exist. Scripture constantly distinguishes between the wicked and the righteous even though they are found participating in the same event at the same time. Why would anyone think it strange that the Holy Spirit would identify the two different parties that take part in the general “resurrection of the dead”? After all, it is a normal biblical procedure to distinguish between these two conflicting camps. Although to suggest that the identifying of these two distinct parties indicates two separate events at two separate times is illogical.

Daniel 12:1-3 reveals, “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”

This reading shows a general resurrection involving two types of people – the righteous and the wicked; one group rises "to everlasting life" the other to "everlasting contempt." The fact that we see a clear description of the general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked tells us that this is a tribulation that occurs prior to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The word here for “many” in the original Hebrew (rab) actually means: the abundance, referring to quantity, size, age, number, rank, quality. In the sense it is used here it includes everyone that is in the grave. Namely: “the abundance of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.”

Jesus said in Matthew 12:41-42, “The men of Nineveh shall rise (_anistemi_) in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up (_egeiro_) in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”

The righteous Old Testament Gentile saint – the queen of the south – is raised at the same time as the wicked Pharisees of Christ’s day to stand before the same judgment seat of Christ.

This is further impressed in the parallel portion in Luke 11:31, only with an additional example, saying, “The queen of the south shall rise up (or) _egeiro_ in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise up (or) _anistemi_ in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”

Here, the two main words used throughout the New Testament for resurrection are applied to the general resurrection that occurs on Judgment Day when the Old Testament time saints and wicked join the New Testament saints and wicked at the judgment. Remember the Queen of the South and Nineveh are presented as Old Testament Gentile saints that will “rise up in the judgment with” the wicked unbelieving Jews of Christ’s day. There is no prolonged parenthesis period separating the resurrection of the wicked dead and the resurrection of the righteous dead. They both “rise up” at the same time. The Old Testament Gentile city of Nineveh is shown to “rise up in the judgment with” (or meta) the religious Jewish world of Christ’s day and “condemn it.” The Greek word _meta_ is described in Strong’s concordance as “a primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly, denoting accompaniment; ‘amid’.”

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

I do admit that I am enjoying watching this interchange. David has no fear and will post one sentence summaries of what he is thinking about at the moment. Paul responds with dissertations. I don't think either side is getting through. Good sport, though.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I do admit that I am enjoying watching this interchange. David has no fear and will post one sentence summaries of what he is thinking about at the moment. Paul responds with dissertations. I don't think either side is getting through. Good sport, though.



This discussion reinforces the conclusion i came to in 2000, that Premil lacks basic corroboration for all its key tenets. Believe me, if it was there someone would be presenting it.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> This discussion reinforces the conclusion i came to in 2000, that Premil lacks basic corroboration for all its key tenets. Believe me, if it was there someone would be presenting it.



No. Some probably don't accept your corroboration standards (which, as I pointed out elsewhere, if applied to other doctrines would negate them, too). Others have already rehashed this on the board many times and many years before you came. Third, I presented my own thoughts one eschatology above which are neither premil nor amil.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I do admit that I am enjoying watching this interchange. David has no fear and will post one sentence summaries of what he is thinking about at the moment. Paul responds with dissertations. I don't think either side is getting through. Good sport, though.


The main difference here us that I will grant that his position is a viable option from the scriptures, but he states it as being Only option!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. Some probably don't accept your corroboration standards (which, as I pointed out elsewhere, if applied to other doctrines would negate them, too). Others have already rehashed this on the board many times and many years before you came. Third, I presented my own thoughts one eschatology above which are neither premil nor amil.


He seems to know the Bible well, but rigid, almost like discussing with a Kjvo person.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The main difference here us that I will grant that his position is a viable option from the scriptures, but he states it as being Only option!



That's actually what I was getting at. All sides have to "tweak" their systems to make it work.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The main difference here us that I will grant that his position is a viable option from the scriptures, but he states it as being Only option!



That is not correct. I accept both Amil and Postmil as viable options from the Scriptures. On the grounds of corroboration, I believe Premil is similar to Pretrib. It enjoys no corroboration for all its basic tenets. This is no small thing, as we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age man will experience. It is just a slight downgrade from the NHNE.

Premils have to ignore or dismiss countless solid climactic Scriptures in order to let Premil fit. This is unacceptable in my opinion. The question that has not been answered here from the Op is, what is the purpose for a future millennium? Many of us would like to know the answer to this.

One of the main reasons I first questioned Premil was that no other NT writer mentions a literal 1,000 following the coming of Christ. If this is supposed to be what Premils suggest - namely the greatest age outside of the new heavens and new earth - then why did none of the other writers allude to it? We don't have one single second coming passage that indicates that there will be 1000 years following.

When we examine Revelation 19 it is totally climatic. Contrary to what you both intimate, we are looking at at the wrath of God been poured out upon the wicked.

Premil 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 it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.

Revelation 19 describes the climactic coming of the Lord and the destruction of all the wicked. It tells us that “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great” would be destroyed. The suffix "both free and bond, both small and great” is added to insure even Premils couldn't wiggle out of this. The beast's army relates to all who are not in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world. That is as water-tight in my estimation and as comprehensive and all-embracing as the Holy Spirit can explain it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> He seems to know the Bible well, but rigid, almost like discussing with a Kjvo person.



For the record, while I am happy to employ the KJV, I am not KJVO. I share your concern re their mindset.

I have been forced to move a lot on my theology over the years. I have changed from Arminianism to the Doctrines of Grace. I have changed from Pretrib Premil Dispensationalism to Posttrib Idealist Amillennialism. That is just some of many issues I have changed on the grounds of explicit Scripture.

Everywhere I go, I am bumping into many that have made a similar journey.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> That is not correct. I accept both Amil and Postmil as viable options from the Scriptures. On the grounds of corroboration, I believe Premil is similar to Pretrib. It enjoys no corroboration for all its basic tenets. This is no small thing, as we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age man will experience. It is just a slight downgrade from the NHNE.
> 
> Premils have to ignore or dismiss countless solid climactic Scriptures in order to let Premil fit. This is unacceptable in my opinion. The question that has not been answered here from the Op is, what is the purpose for a future millennium? Many of us would like to know the answer to this.
> 
> One of the main reasons I first questioned Premil was that no other NT writer mentions a literal 1,000 following the coming of Christ. If this is supposed to be what Premils suggest - namely the greatest age outside of the new heavens and new earth - then why did none of the other writers allude to it? We don't have one single second coming passage that indicates that there will be 1000 years following.
> 
> When we examine Revelation 19 it is totally climatic. Contrary to what you both intimate, we are looking at at the wrath of God been poured out upon the wicked.
> 
> Premil 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 it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.
> 
> Revelation 19 describes the climactic coming of the Lord and the destruction of all the wicked. It tells us that “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great” would be destroyed. The suffix "both free and bond, both small and great” is added to insure even Premils couldn't wiggle out of this. The beast's army relates to all who are not in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world. That is as water-tight in my estimation and as comprehensive and all-embracing as the Holy Spirit can explain it.


Since all scripture was inspired, one passage is enough!


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's actually what I was getting at. All sides have to "tweak" their systems to make it work.


He dies not seem to see premil at all in Bible. Wonder if due to reacting against Dispensational version?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> He dies not seem to see premil at all in Bible. Wonder if due to reacting against Dispensational version?



Hello, I am here! I can speak for myself.

I abandoned dispensational Premillennialism pretty quick after I came back to the Lord. I settled by default at the Postrib Premillennialism position. That was what was being taught in my church. I even preached it!

In the year 2000 I began to write a book supporting Historic Premillennialism. I began to quickly see that the doctrine was covered in holes. Numerous Scripture forbid the Premillennialism position. Passage after passage was climatic. Also, I could find no clear corroboration whatsoever for every tenant of the Premillennial view of Revelation 20. After six months of research I abandoned Premillennialism and embraced Amillennialism.

I have since continued my studies and have about 19 years of research built up. I am even more convinced today, than I ever was, that the Premillennial view of Revelation 20 is forcing something on the text that does not exist.

I have also undertaken deep research into the ECFs. For years I have heard (and read) that Premil was the historic default position of the early Church, yet when I examined various claims they did not seem to stand up to factual examination.

I have been happy to place my work online since 2000 for others to challenge. I find that the Amillennialism position is watertight.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> I have also undertaken deep research into the ECFs. For years I have heard (and read) that Premil was the historic default position of the early Church, yet when I examined various claims they did not seem to stand up to factual examination.



Mostly true. There is no "default position of the Early Church" because there is no Early Church (™). Justrn and Irenaeus say premil-sounding things. Origen goes into full gnostic allegorizing. Augustine admits to allegorising. They are all over the map.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Mostly true. There is no "default position of the Early Church" because there is no Early Church (™). Justrn and Irenaeus say premil-sounding things. Origen goes into full gnostic allegorizing. Augustine admits to allegorising. They are all over the map.



Christians today are all over the place. Most have never taken the time to research it in any depth.

I am sorry that you demonize Origen. Have you read his works? Or did you read that on some blinkered Premil website? He was actually an opponent of Gnosticism. He literalized what Scripture did and allegorized what Scripture did.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Christians today are all over the place. Most have never taken the time to research it in any depth.
> 
> I am sorry that you demonize Origen. Have you read his works? Or did you read that on some blinkered Premil website? He was actually an opponent of Gnosticism. He literalized what Scripture did and allegorized what Scripture did.


Some form of premil was held by many in early Church, but AMil became primary view once established by Augustine to support Rome as Kingdom of God on Earth, helped by Origen forced allogory views of scripture.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Some form of premil was held by many in early Church, but AMil became primary view once established by Augustine to support Rome as Kingdom of God on Earth, helped by Origen forced allogory views of scripture.



Hardly! There was only one Premil in the first 100 years after the cross - Papias.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> I am sorry that you demonize Origen. Have you read his works? Or did you read that on some blinkered Premil website? He was actually an opponent of Gnosticism. He literalized what Scripture did and allegorized what Scripture did.



I've spent the last 15 years reading over 12,000 pages of the church fathers. I've read through Peri Archon twice, along with all of Origen's leading interpreters. Paul's "allegory" linked events in Scripture to each other. Origen's allegory links Scripture to moral and theological principles.

As to "demonizing" Origen, I am only summarizing what the 5th Ecumenical Council (well, Justinian anyway) said about him.


----------



## RamistThomist

I'll post the others later.
https://puritanboard.com/threads/origen-and-the-life-of-the-stars.96283/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/history-and-spirit-de-lubac.100309/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/a-...uide-to-the-early-fathers.96977/#post-1184978
https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-2-de-lubac.94099/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-1-de-lubac.94094/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/boersma-scripture-as-real-presence.98651/


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'll post the others later.
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/origen-and-the-life-of-the-stars.96283/
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/history-and-spirit-de-lubac.100309/
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/a-...uide-to-the-early-fathers.96977/#post-1184978
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-2-de-lubac.94099/
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/medieval-exegesis-vol-1-de-lubac.94094/
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/boersma-scripture-as-real-presence.98651/



I looked at the first link and there was no evidence to support your supposition.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've spent the last 15 years reading over 12,000 pages of the church fathers. I've read through Peri Archon twice, along with all of Origen's leading interpreters. Paul's "allegory" linked events in Scripture to each other. Origen's allegory links Scripture to moral and theological principles.
> 
> As to "demonizing" Origen, I am only summarizing what the 5th Ecumenical Council (well, Justinian anyway) said about him.



Glad to see that you have researched this. Please present exact quotes instead of people’s opinions.


----------



## Dachaser

Revelation 20 describes still future event, as those who died at hands of Antichrist were raised back from death to reign with Jesus, it's right there in the passage!


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Glad to see that you have researched this. Please present exact quotes instead of people’s opinions.



Exact quotes of what? Origen's allegorizing? That's common knowledge. As to gnosticism, yes, I know he formally opposed Gnosticism. I also know, per Boersma, that Origen asserted that he valued the historical sense. I don't think he did in practice, though.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> I looked at the first link and there was no evidence to support your supposition.



I am not sure what you think my supposition was. I was simply demonstrating that I was painfully familiar with Origen (I always feel dirty after reading him).


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not sure what you think my supposition was. I was simply demonstrating that I was painfully familiar with Origen (I always feel dirty after reading him).



Please furnish us with any direct quotes from Origen supporting Gnosticism. I have never seen them. Opinion is inadmissible, apart from a democratic impeachment inquiry.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Please furnish us with any direct quotes supporting Gnosticism. I have never seen them. Opinion is inadmissible, apart from a democratic impeachment inquiry.



I already admitted I was using gnosticism in a loose sense, as in Origen's denigrating matter and history (and ultimately coming close to eternal return, per Maximus).

I also find it amusing that I am being told what is and isn't admissible. You have these weird standards of what is proper and what isn't (usually something to do with corroboration).

Also, I checked your profile. You haven't posted on anything that isn't eschatology related.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I already admitted I was using gnosticism in a loose sense, as in Origen's denigrating matter and history (and ultimately coming close to eternal return, per Maximus).
> 
> I also find it amusing that I am being told what is and isn't admissible. You have these weird standards of what is proper and what isn't (usually something to do with corroboration).
> 
> Also, I checked your profile. You haven't posted on anything that isn't eschatology related.


His mind seems to be totally closed off to any proof for premil, very similar to how Kjvo see their pet doctrine!


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I already admitted I was using gnosticism in a loose sense, as in Origen's denigrating matter and history (and ultimately coming close to eternal return, per Maximus).



But you are writing off an early church father with zero factual evidence and just mere personal opinion, similar to what to how the Democrats are pushing impeachment. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." The ball is in your court! It seems like you simply want to discredit Origen to prove the popular Premil lie that Augustine was the first orthodox Amiller.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> His mind seems to be totally closed off to any proof for premil, very similar to how Kjvo see their pet doctrine!



And you are not wedded to Premil???

How can you hold such a doctrine when you admit all you have is Rev 20? At least I am presenting multiple Scripture to support the Amil position.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> But you are writing off an early church father with zero factual evidence and just mere personal opinion, similar to what to how the Democrats are pushing impeachment. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." The ball is in your court! It seems like you simply want to discredit Origen to prove the popular Premil lie that Augustine was the first orthodox Amiller.



I am not writing off Origen because I think he is a gnostic. That was tongue in cheek (and I revised as much). And it is not my personal opinion. He was largely condemned in the East after Justinian. I spent most of a decade studying the various Origenistic crises. 

I've read Origen's Peri Archon at least twice. I've read most of his commentary on John. I've read key passages from Joshua. I've read the first part of Against Celsus. 

Again, you say I "allege," but I am not sure what you think I am alleging. 

I admire him that he was tortured for his faith. He stood up well. His theology is abominable in parts..


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> How can you hold such a doctrine when you admit all you have is Rev 20?



Did he actually admit that? When I used to defend premil I never said anything like that.


----------



## RamistThomist

And you didn't respond to my statement that you only post about eschatology. I double-checked on your profile.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not writing off Origen because I think he is a gnostic. That was tongue in cheek (and I revised as much). And it is not my personal opinion. He was largely condemned in the East after Justinian. I spent most of a decade studying the various Origenistic crises.
> 
> I've read Origen's Peri Archon at least twice. I've read most of his commentary on John. I've read key passages from Joshua. I've read the first part of Against Celsus.
> 
> Again, you say I "allege," but I am not sure what you think I am alleging.
> 
> I admire him that he was tortured for his faith. He stood up well. His theology is abominable in parts..



Please furnish direct quotes of the “abominable ... parts” in Origen’s theology. To be quite blunt, personal opinion means nothing.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> And you didn't respond to my statement that you only post about eschatology. I double-checked on your profile.



Believe me, I speak and write on a lot of subjects. I often preach three times a week. Most of that is devotional. This is only one of many topics that I have an interest in. I just so happen to be writing a number of books on the subject at the moment. That might explain why I’m focused on the subject here.

What is your big problem with me discussing eschatology here anyway?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> His mind seems to be totally closed off to any proof for premil, very similar to how Kjvo see their pet doctrine!



Why do Premils always sink to ad hominem when they cannot answer the questions?


Dachaser said:


> Revelation 20 describes still future event, as those who died at hands of Antichrist were raised back from death to reign with Jesus, it's right there in the passage!



And who are they? The saints in glory now reigning with a victorious Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Why do Premils always sink to ad hominem when they cannot answer the questions?
> 
> 
> And who are they? The saints in glory now reigning with a victorious Christ.


Except that prior chapter describes Jesus coming to earth, to defeat Antichrist, and then go into reigning in Chspter 20, do Jesus on Earth at that time.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> And you are not wedded to Premil???
> 
> How can you hold such a doctrine when you admit all you have is Rev 20? At least I am presenting multiple Scripture to support the Amil position.


George Ladd view on this, Kingdom here in part but not yet in full, as Jesus is High Priest in Heaven now, but will be direct reigning here when His Kingdom comes in full at return.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Did he actually admit that? When I used to defend premil I never said anything like that.


Iadmit that Chapter 20 describes. Premil position, but far from only passage !

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Except that prior chapter describes Jesus coming to earth, to defeat Antichrist, and then go into reigning in Chspter 20, do Jesus on Earth at that time.



That is because Revelation 20 is the 7th of 7 recaps in the apocalypse, all ending with His climactic return. Surely you do not believe there are several second comings of Christ? As I have shown, and as you have repeatedly ignored, the climactic detail of Rev 19 forbids the Premil position. This is reinforced with the lack of any other corroborative detail to support your theory. If you had it, you would give it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> George Ladd view on this, Kingdom here in part but not yet in full, as Jesus is High Priest in Heaven now, but will be direct reigning here when His Kingdom comes in full at return.



... yes, but not on a new earth similar to this one, corrupted with sin, sinners, death, decay and the devil.

Anyway, Scripture only recognizes two ages – “this world/age” and “the world/age to come.” One is current, corrupt and temporal and the other is impending, perfect and eternal. These terms are commonly used in the New Testament when contrasting the toil and trouble of the here-and-now with the glory and pristine nature of the hereafter. These two common phrases are found in different places in the New Testament, along with several other similar expressions, referring to time and eternity.

Premils invent a third age that was unknown to Christ and the other NT writers that is more of the same. They anticipate a semi-glorious/semi-corrupt kingdom that is half-liberated and half-bound. This undesirable mongrel earth is equally filled with righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and sinlessness, glorified saints and mortal rebels, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Iadmit that Chapter 20 describes. Premil position, but far from only passage !



Since abandoning Premil I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premil doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter 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.

(2) Premil 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 it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.

(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.

(4) Premil's interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scripture.

(5) Premil 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.”

(6) Premil spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point.

(7) Premil 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.

(8) Because these thousand years cannot be found anywhere else in Scripture, apart from the highly symbolic Revelation 20, Premil is forced to insert a thousand years in text after text where it doesn't exist. Objective Bible students should struggle with building their eschatology on the 3rd last chapter of the Bible, in a highly figurative setting, especially when we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age ever. The scriptural silence elsewhere speaks loud to most of us!

(9) Premil is constantly exalting the power and influence of Satan and diluting the sovereign power and influence of Christ. That is nowhere more evident than in their constant rubbishing of Christ’s current kingship over His enemies at the right hand of majesty on high. Whether they mean to or not, Premils are always highlighting what Satan is doing in our day instead of what Christ is doing. Premil portrays a BIG devil and a small god; Scripture presents a small devil and a BIG God. In Premil, Satan seems sovereign in this age and God is curtailed. Premils are always lauding the ability of Satan since the cross. In Scripture, Christ is sovereign and Satan is curtailed. Scripture is always lauding the ability of Christ since the cross. As a consequence, Premil portrays an impotent beat-down New Testament Church, whereas Scripture sees a victorious potent New Testament Church invading the nations with the good news of Christ and subjugating the powers of darkness as they do so. In Scripture Christ reigns over all creation as God and His new creation as Saviour.

(10) Another major error that Premil makes is that it constantly presents the Old Testament as if the new covenant has never arrived. It is as if Jesus Christ has not come and fulfilled the old imperfect typical arrangement and introduced the new perfect eternal arrangement. It is as if the Old Testament promises have not been interpreted by the New Testament writers. What Premils insist is literal, physical, visible and earthly, the New Testament writers interpret as figurative, spiritual, invisible and heavenly. What Premils locate in their supposed future millennium, the New Testament writers locate in our current intra-Advent period.

(11) Because Premil lacks any corroboration in Scripture for a future 1,000 years’ age after the second coming, it invents 2 “last days” periods to allow Premil to fit. Mark 1 now, and Mark 2 after the second coming. Premils also invent 2 new heavens and new earths. Mark 1 they relate to their alleged future millennium and is sin-cursed and corrupt. Mark 2 is perfect and incorrupt and they equate it to 1,000 years+ after this.

(12) Premillennialists cannot even agree on the timing of the arrival of the new heavens and the new earth. They are split on whether Revelation 21 comes chronologically after Revelation 20 and therefore after the millennium kingdom and Satan’s little season in time or whether it is synonymous to that much-debated chapter and that the new heavens and new earth appears at the start of the millennium. This exposes another major weakness in the Premillennial camp: if they cannot even agree on something so simple and elementary as this in their main proof text, how can we trust their chronological approach to Revelation 19 and Revelation 20?

(13) Premil invents a 3rd group of humans that Scripture knows nothing of, that are too wicked to be raptured at the second coming and too righteous to be destroyed. It is these mortals, they argue, who populate their alleged future millennial earth. The reality is there are only two peoples in this world – the righteous and the unrighteous; those "in Adam" (the 1st birth) and those "in Christ" (2nd birth).

(14) Premil has an unhealthy obsessive focus on natural Israel, wrongly believing her to be God’s chosen people today under the new covenant. As a result, they have a mistaken fixation with natural Jerusalem in the Middle East, as if it is the epicentre of God’s workings with mankind on this earth and the place of His unconditional favour. This is wrong! They ignore much Scripture that shows that the fig tree has been cut down, the kingdom of God has been removed from Israel. Ancient Jerusalem and the temple therein was merely an Old Testament imperfect shadow of the heavenly reality that was revealed at the first advent. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that we have become one with spiritual believing Israel in the OT. It makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one new man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time!

(15) General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the living and the dead,” “every man,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men every where,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. This shows that the Premil’s boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.

(16) Premil takes common linguistic terms that are easily understood by the unindoctrinated observer in any language to mean the opposite to what they actually say. For example, Premil does not believe that "first" means first and "last" means last. The English words “first” and “last” are taken from the Greek words protos and eschatos and are widely accepted by all unbiased theologians to denote exactly what they say. The word protos means first, as in the foremost in time, place, order or importance. The word eschatos on the other hand means end, last, farthest and final. It is explicitly clear from their usage, meaning and context in the New Testament that these words are the exact antithesis of each other.

(17) Premil does not believe that “the end” refers to the end. The New Testament word from which we get our phrase “the end” is the Greek word telos which refers to the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. the conclusion of an act or state. It is the termination point of a thing. When Scripture simply talks about “the beginning” without any other additional words or contextual reason to identify it with a specific event, then most sane theologians agree it is talking about “the beginning” of creation. Whilst all sound theologians agree on this many are inconsistent when it comes to “the end.” The reason I believe is because it cuts across a lot of their end-time theology they have been taught. But I believe we should treat both sayings similarly. Unless Scripture specifically identifies “the end” with a particular event or matter like “the end of barley harvest” (Ruth 2:23) “the end of the sabbath” (Matt 28:1), “the end of the year” (2 Chron 24:23), “the end of the rod” (1 Sam 14:27), or “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim 1:5), etc, etc, then we should understand it as the end of the world (which is the end of the age).


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> ... yes, but not on a new earth similar to this one, corrupted with sin, sinners, death, decay and the devil.
> 
> Anyway, Scripture only recognizes two ages – “this world/age” and “the world/age to come.” One is current, corrupt and temporal and the other is impending, perfect and eternal. These terms are commonly used in the New Testament when contrasting the toil and trouble of the here-and-now with the glory and pristine nature of the hereafter. These two common phrases are found in different places in the New Testament, along with several other similar expressions, referring to time and eternity.
> 
> Premils invent a third age that was unknown to Christ and the other NT writers that is more of the same. They anticipate a semi-glorious/semi-corrupt kingdom that is half-liberated and half-bound. This undesirable mongrel earth is equally filled with righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and sinlessness, glorified saints and mortal rebels, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture.


The kingdom age of King Jesus has no sickness, war, disease, where do you get that we say it does,?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Since abandoning Premil I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premil doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.
> 
> (1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter 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.
> 
> (2) Premil 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 it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.
> 
> (3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.
> 
> (4) Premil's interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scripture.
> 
> (5) Premil 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.”
> 
> (6) Premil spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point.
> 
> (7) Premil 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.
> 
> (8) Because these thousand years cannot be found anywhere else in Scripture, apart from the highly symbolic Revelation 20, Premil is forced to insert a thousand years in text after text where it doesn't exist. Objective Bible students should struggle with building their eschatology on the 3rd last chapter of the Bible, in a highly figurative setting, especially when we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age ever. The scriptural silence elsewhere speaks loud to most of us!
> 
> (9) Premil is constantly exalting the power and influence of Satan and diluting the sovereign power and influence of Christ. That is nowhere more evident than in their constant rubbishing of Christ’s current kingship over His enemies at the right hand of majesty on high. Whether they mean to or not, Premils are always highlighting what Satan is doing in our day instead of what Christ is doing. Premil portrays a BIG devil and a small god; Scripture presents a small devil and a BIG God. In Premil, Satan seems sovereign in this age and God is curtailed. Premils are always lauding the ability of Satan since the cross. In Scripture, Christ is sovereign and Satan is curtailed. Scripture is always lauding the ability of Christ since the cross. As a consequence, Premil portrays an impotent beat-down New Testament Church, whereas Scripture sees a victorious potent New Testament Church invading the nations with the good news of Christ and subjugating the powers of darkness as they do so. In Scripture Christ reigns over all creation as God and His new creation as Saviour.
> 
> (10) Another major error that Premil makes is that it constantly presents the Old Testament as if the new covenant has never arrived. It is as if Jesus Christ has not come and fulfilled the old imperfect typical arrangement and introduced the new perfect eternal arrangement. It is as if the Old Testament promises have not been interpreted by the New Testament writers. What Premils insist is literal, physical, visible and earthly, the New Testament writers interpret as figurative, spiritual, invisible and heavenly. What Premils locate in their supposed future millennium, the New Testament writers locate in our current intra-Advent period.
> 
> (11) Because Premil lacks any corroboration in Scripture for a future 1,000 years’ age after the second coming, it invents 2 “last days” periods to allow Premil to fit. Mark 1 now, and Mark 2 after the second coming. Premils also invent 2 new heavens and new earths. Mark 1 they relate to their alleged future millennium and is sin-cursed and corrupt. Mark 2 is perfect and incorrupt and they equate it to 1,000 years+ after this.
> 
> (12) Premillennialists cannot even agree on the timing of the arrival of the new heavens and the new earth. They are split on whether Revelation 21 comes chronologically after Revelation 20 and therefore after the millennium kingdom and Satan’s little season in time or whether it is synonymous to that much-debated chapter and that the new heavens and new earth appears at the start of the millennium. This exposes another major weakness in the Premillennial camp: if they cannot even agree on something so simple and elementary as this in their main proof text, how can we trust their chronological approach to Revelation 19 and Revelation 20?
> 
> (13) Premil invents a 3rd group of humans that Scripture knows nothing of, that are too wicked to be raptured at the second coming and too righteous to be destroyed. It is these mortals, they argue, who populate their alleged future millennial earth. The reality is there are only two peoples in this world – the righteous and the unrighteous; those "in Adam" (the 1st birth) and those "in Christ" (2nd birth).
> 
> (14) Premil has an unhealthy obsessive focus on natural Israel, wrongly believing her to be God’s chosen people today under the new covenant. As a result, they have a mistaken fixation with natural Jerusalem in the Middle East, as if it is the epicentre of God’s workings with mankind on this earth and the place of His unconditional favour. This is wrong! They ignore much Scripture that shows that the fig tree has been cut down, the kingdom of God has been removed from Israel. Ancient Jerusalem and the temple therein was merely an Old Testament imperfect shadow of the heavenly reality that was revealed at the first advent. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that we have become one with spiritual believing Israel in the OT. It makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one new man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time!
> 
> (15) General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the living and the dead,” “every man,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men every where,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. This shows that the Premil’s boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.
> 
> (16) Premil takes common linguistic terms that are easily understood by the unindoctrinated observer in any language to mean the opposite to what they actually say. For example, Premil does not believe that "first" means first and "last" means last. The English words “first” and “last” are taken from the Greek words protos and eschatos and are widely accepted by all unbiased theologians to denote exactly what they say. The word protos means first, as in the foremost in time, place, order or importance. The word eschatos on the other hand means end, last, farthest and final. It is explicitly clear from their usage, meaning and context in the New Testament that these words are the exact antithesis of each other.
> 
> (17) Premil does not believe that “the end” refers to the end. The New Testament word from which we get our phrase “the end” is the Greek word telos which refers to the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. the conclusion of an act or state. It is the termination point of a thing. When Scripture simply talks about “the beginning” without any other additional words or contextual reason to identify it with a specific event, then most sane theologians agree it is talking about “the beginning” of creation. Whilst all sound theologians agree on this many are inconsistent when it comes to “the end.” The reason I believe is because it cuts across a lot of their end-time theology they have been taught. But I believe we should treat both sayings similarly. Unless Scripture specifically identifies “the end” with a particular event or matter like “the end of barley harvest” (Ruth 2:23) “the end of the sabbath” (Matt 28:1), “the end of the year” (2 Chron 24:23), “the end of the rod” (1 Sam 14:27), or “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim 1:5), etc, etc, then we should understand it as the end of the world (which is the end of the age).


There is the end of this Age and final stage end, eternal state after reign of Christ here on Earth.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The kingdom age of King Jesus has no sickness, war, disease, where do you get that we say it does,?



Are there any mortals that survive the second coming and which populate your millennial earth? If so, do they sin, get sick and/or die?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

David

To be honest, it doesn't sound like you have done much reading on various views. The first book I read was The Meaning of the millennium Four Views edited by Robert Clouse. It opened my eyes to the various views. I believe Anthony Hoekema has some answers he worked through you can read here. Anthony Hoekema discusses some of the things you are bringing up in this thread. I would also recommend a more thorough book on the topic by Cornel Venema titled The Promise of the Future. He is very thorough and gives a great history of the teachings through the ages. The cheapest I found it was on Amazon. I also recommend William Cox's Amillennialism Today. 

A principle when reading scripture is how we interpret obscure passages with more clear passages. That was important to me. A point of reference that helped me with this was on the topic of the binding of Satan. The Intervarsity Press book by Clouse was the first book I read and it helped me tremendously. 

I am trying to locate another booklet I read that helped me a lot. I will get back to you on it.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> There is the end of this Age and final stage end, eternal state after reign of Christ here on Earth.



Exactly, you prove my point. The phrase "the end" is totally butchered by Premil to mean anything but "the end." Also, how many ages does Jesus and the NT writers speak of - 2 or 3?


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David
> 
> To be honest, it doesn't sound like you have done much reading on various views. The first book I read was The Meaning of the millennium Four Views edited by Robert Clouse. It opened my eyes to the various views. I believe Anthony Hoekema has some answers he worked through you can read here. Anthony Hoekema discusses some of the things you are bringing up in this thread. I would also recommend a more thorough book on the topic by Cornel Venema titled The Promise of the Future. He is very thorough and gives a great history of the teachings through the ages. The cheapest I found it was on Amazon. I also recommend William Cox's Amillennialism Today.
> 
> A principle when reading scripture is how we interpret obscure passages with more clear passages. That was important to me. A point of reference that helped me with this was on the topic of the binding of Satan. The Intervarsity Press book by Clouse was the first book I read and it helped me tremendously.
> 
> I am trying to locate another booklet I read that helped me a lot. I will get back to you on it.


I have read the book on the 4 main views, and also have read the one that contrasted AMil and Premil published by Moody Press. Have you read The Blessed Hope By GE Ladd, as he helped to shape my current view.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Exactly, you prove my point. The phrase "the end" is totally butchered by Premil to mean anything but "the end." Also, how many ages does Jesus and the NT writers speak of - 2 or 3?


Current age, Kingdom age, and eternal state.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Are there any mortals that survive the second coming and which populate your millennial earth? If so, do they sin, get sick and/or die?


Yes, and no. Will be paradise restored.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Current age, Kingdom age, and eternal state.



Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no intervening time-period or temporal age in between “this age” and “the age to come.” It is within the bounds of this juxtapose alone that we understand the whole eschatological arrangement, with its two unique diverse worlds. Johnathan Menn points out that the New Testament “gives us a clear, consistent and comprehensive eschatological interpretive structure. That structure is the ‘two ages’: … ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’. The terminology of the two ages is the key concept for understanding biblical eschatology. A proper understanding of how this age and the age to come fit together renders biblical eschatology both understandable and coherent.”


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no intervening time-period or temporal age in between “this age” and “the age to come.” It is within the bounds of this juxtapose alone that we understand the whole eschatological arrangement, with its two unique diverse worlds. Johnathan Menn points out that the New Testament “gives us a clear, consistent and comprehensive eschatological interpretive structure. That structure is the ‘two ages’: … ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’. The terminology of the two ages is the key concept for understanding biblical eschatology. A proper understanding of how this age and the age to come fit together renders biblical eschatology both understandable and coherent.”


The Messianic Age as foretold by OT Prophets should not be fully spiritualized in understanding future events.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Yes, and no. Will be paradise restored.



(1) Who then are the billions of mortal fools that overrun "the blissful" Premil millennium (and new earth) "as the sand of the sea" after being subject to the glorious perfect rule of the risen Christ and then brazenly oppose Christ and the glorified saints?

(2) Where do they come from?

(3) Despite the alleged paradise-like conditions, the glorious and victorious unchallenged rule of Christ with a “rod of iron” and the so-called submissiveness of the nations that Premils attribute to their millennial kingdom, surely we are looking at the biggest and most-amazing religious turn-around in history in the Premil scenario? After all, at the first sight of Satan, the nations turn en-mass against Christ to Satan as “the sand of the sea”? Is this not the grossest sin imaginable?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The Messianic Age as foretold by OT Prophets should not be fully spiritualized in understanding future events.



You are avoiding the questions. 

Luke 20:27-33 records: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.”

Christ replies in Luke 20:34-36: “The children of this world (or _aion_ or age) marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (or _aion_ or age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

It is impossible to miss the constant comparison between “this world” and “that world” or “this age” and “that age.” Those who live in this current evil age are described as “the children of this age” but those who are depicted as being “worthy to obtain that age” to come are described exclusively as “the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” and as being “equal unto the angels.” One must be suitably qualified in order inherit the new world to come. Those that are worthy to obtain that age are not mortals and not sinners; they are rather glorified saints – who incidentally never marry or die.

Let us pause for a moment and consider what is being said here: people marry right up until the second coming but in the age to come they don’t marry because it relates to the glorified eternal state. What is more: people die right up until the second coming but in the age to come they don’t die. Why? Because sin, sinners and the wicked are not welcome on the new glorified perfected earth that Christ introduces at the second coming. This is not the case with the Premillennial age to come; marriage, divorce, funerals and mourning continues unabated. This passage forbids the Premil theory.

The contrast here moves from: ‘marriage’ to ‘no marriage’, ‘death’ to ‘no death’. Marriage disappears! Death disappears! The turning point is the glorious coming of Christ and the resurrection that accompanies it. If words carry any meaning in Scripture then the whole Premillennial scheme falls apart with such a passage. After all, in their paradigm, sin, corruption, death and rebellion continues on unabated on the Premil new earth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Have you read The Blessed Hope By GE Ladd, as he helped to shape my current view.


I have to admit that I haven't. Just the portion he wrote in the four views book. And his rebuttal to the other views in the book. 

I have read some of A. W. Pink on the topic. This was the passage that convinced him. 
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 

He was Premil who became Amil. 
Have you read Hoekema's book? The Bible and the Future

As I noted above the topic of the binding of Satan was one thing that convinced me. There are plain scriptures that speak directly to that topic in the New Testament outside of the book of Revelation. I also recognized how time in most prophetic scriptures was symbolic and not literal. The Genre of scripture is different and to read typically different. A week is not a week, a day is not a literal day, etc. I was also convinced by how Revelation read in layers topically, not chronologically.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I read a booklet years ago that is very hard to find David. "The Gospel Millennium and Obedience to Scripture" But a lot of it is summarized here. You can also listen to the guy speak on the topic. It is a good listen. He is a Baptist. Probably dead now. 
Robert L Whitelaw

He has a long list of Q&A things along with an audio on this page. 
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/gospel-millennium/sermon.php


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have to admit that I haven't. Just the portion he wrote in the four views book. And his rebuttal to the other views in the book.



Ladd is an amil who holds to a premil view of Revelation 20. He doesn't let premillennialism inform the rest of Scripture. Paul in this thread keeps saying (incorrectly) that premils only rely on Revelation 20. Neither David nor I (if I am in fact premil) do so. Very few do, actually. George Ladd is the only one who does.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ladd is an amil who holds to a premil view of Revelation 20. He doesn't let premillennialism inform the rest of Scripture. Paul in this thread keeps saying (incorrectly) that premils only rely on Revelation 20. Neither David nor I (if I am in fact premil) do so. Very few do, actually. George Ladd is the only one who does.



Can you please address the issue of this thread: what is the purpose for a future millennium after the second coming?


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ladd is an amil who holds to a premil view of Revelation 20. He doesn't let premillennialism inform the rest of Scripture. Paul in this thread keeps saying (incorrectly) that premils only rely on Revelation 20. Neither David nor I (if I am in fact premil) do so. Very few do, actually. George Ladd is the only one who does.



OK then, the first principle of evidence is: "he alleges must prove!" Where is your biblical support for the premillennial theory? Let's start with the binding of Satan: *What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely 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?*


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> (1) Who then are the billions of mortal fools that overrun "the blissful" Premil millennium (and new earth) "as the sand of the sea" after being subject to the glorious perfect rule of the risen Christ and then brazenly oppose Christ and the glorified saints?
> 
> (2) Where do they come from?
> 
> (3) Despite the alleged paradise-like conditions, the glorious and victorious unchallenged rule of Christ with a “rod of iron” and the so-called submissiveness of the nations that Premils attribute to their millennial kingdom, surely we are looking at the biggest and most-amazing religious turn-around in history in the Premil scenario? After all, at the first sight of Satan, the nations turn en-mass against Christ to Satan as “the sand of the sea”? Is this not the grossest sin imaginable?


They would be those who submitted to rule of Jesus outwardly, but we're not making Him Lord in their hearts! Final proof that even in Paradise, hearts of lost deceitfully wicked.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> Paul in this thread keeps saying (incorrectly) that premils only rely on Revelation 20. Neither David nor I (if I am in fact premil) do so. Very few do, actually.


I understand that Jacob. I was surrounded by guys who were Premil who thought they were interpreting Revelation 20 in light of other books in the bible as well. At the same time you have to admit that the term is only used in Revelation 20. I guess we could all look at it as a different dispensation or different economy that is being looked into and defined by our understanding of what that dispensation or economy may look like. 

I just think that the Postmil or Amil positions do a better job. They can be used synonymously as Amil is a rather new term comparatively. Some Post Toasty's believe in a literal 1K golden age. Not all. There are various views of that persuasion also. So defining all Premils under one camp is not a good idea either. Chilism is not the same thing as what Premil is today either. 

I just don't see it. Like I noted, the binding of Satan was a beginning point for me. 

And I agree that Origen can be very strange also. It has been a long time since I even looked into the Origen stuff or read anything by him. It wasn't worth my time.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have to admit that I haven't. Just the portion he wrote in the four views book. And his rebuttal to the other views in the book.
> 
> I have read some of A. W. Pink on the topic. This was the passage that convinced him.
> 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
> 1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
> 1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
> 
> He was Premil who became Amil.
> Have you read Hoekema's book? The Bible and the Future
> 
> As I noted above the topic of the binding of Satan was one thing that convinced me. There are plain scriptures that speak directly to that topic in the New Testament outside of the book of Revelation. I also recognized how time in most prophetic scriptures was symbolic and not literal. The Genre of scripture is different and to read typically different. A week is not a week, a day is not a literal day, etc. I was also convinced by how Revelation read in layers topically, not chronologically.


Suggest Ladd and Robert Mounce.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I understand that Jacob. I was surrounded by guys who were Premil who thought they were interpreting Revelation 20 in light of other books in the bible as well. At the same time you have to admit that the term is only used in Revelation 20. I guess we could all look at it as a different dispensation or different economy that is being looked into and defined by our understanding of what that dispensation or economy may look like.
> 
> I just think that the Postmil or Amil positions do a better job. They can be used synonymously as Amil is a rather new term comparatively. Some Post Toasty's believe in a literal 1K golden age. Not all. There are various views of that persuasion also. So defining all Premils under one camp is not a good idea either. Chilism is not the same thing as what Premil is today either.
> 
> I just don't see it. Like I noted, the binding of Satan was a beginning point for me.
> 
> And I agree that Origen can be very strange also. It has been a long time since I even looked into the Origen stuff or read anything by him. It wasn't worth my time.


The question is does Bible only support AMil at all position?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Suggest Ladd and Robert Mounce.


Thank You David. I do wish you would interact more with what is being put your way. One or two lines of comment are not real interaction with a post. It is kind of obfuscating the points being brought up. You are not interacting. That has to stop. You have been warned enough.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> The question is does Bible only support AMil at all position?


David, If you don't start interacting with posts correctly and intelligently by actually answering a post you will have problems. Please. No More one or two liners. I think you can read by the post you quote here what my answer is.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> They would be those who submitted to rule of Jesus outwardly, but we're not making Him Lord in their hearts! Final proof that even in Paradise, hearts of lost deceitfully wicked.



You are totally all over the place.

I asked: *"Are there any mortals that survive the second coming and which populate your millennial earth? If so, do they sin, get sick and/or die?"*

You replied: "Yes, and no. Will be paradise restored."

I responded: *"Who then are the billions of mortal fools that overrun "the blissful" Premil millennium (and new earth) "as the sand of the sea" after being subject to the glorious perfect rule of the risen Christ and then brazenly oppose Christ and the glorified saints?"*

You replied: "They would be those who submitted to rule of Jesus outwardly, but we're not making Him Lord in their hearts! Final proof that even in Paradise, hearts of lost deceitfully wicked."

Well, there you have it - sin, rebellion, and wickedness in your perfect blissful millennium!!!


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> You are totally all over the place.
> 
> I asked: *"Are there any mortals that survive the second coming and which populate your millennial earth? If so, do they sin, get sick and/or die?"*
> 
> You replied: "Yes, and no. Will be paradise restored."
> 
> I responded: *"Who then are the billions of mortal fools that overrun "the blissful" Premil millennium (and new earth) "as the sand of the sea" after being subject to the glorious perfect rule of the risen Christ and then brazenly oppose Christ and the glorified saints?"*
> 
> You replied: "They would be those who submitted to rule of Jesus outwardly, but we're not making Him Lord in their hearts! Final proof that even in Paradise, hearts of lost deceitfully wicked."
> 
> Well, there you have it - sin, rebellion, and wickedness in your perfect blissful millennium!!!


The reigning of Jesus shall be the full fulfillment of Messiah in His Kingdom as seen by the OT Prophets, and there will not be what you described until end time


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thank You David. I do wish you would interact more with what is being put your way. One or two lines of comment are not real interaction with a post. It is kind of obfuscating the points being brought up. You are not interacting. That has to stop. You have been warned enough.


 I understand, but when someone else posts entire book summaries at times hard to follow.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, If you don't start interacting with posts correctly and intelligently by actually answering a post you will have problems. Please. No More one or two liners. I think you can read by the post you quote here what my answer is.


My concern is that someone discussing this seems to hold to only A mil is to be seen as the official position, and think that Premil, Postmil, and AMil positions have been held by others throughout history.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> And I agree that Origen can be very strange also.



meaning borderline heretical. Universal salvation, necessary creation; pre-existence of souls.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> At the same time you have to admit that the term is only used in Revelation 20



Which doesn't phase me one bit. To reduce it to merely terms is to commit the word = concept fallacy. That's precisely what Paul has done in this entire thread (and why I don't really bother anymore).


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I understand, but when someone else posts entire book summaries at times hard to follow.



You are exactly right. Next time that happens, just type "tl;dr"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> I understand, but when someone else posts entire book summaries at times hard to follow.





BayouHuguenot said:


> You are exactly right. Next time that happens, just type "tl;dr"



No, do not do that. Just ask him to simplify and take things topic by topic. 

David has not interacted with me very well and I have not plowed him under with a lot of paragraphs. His two line scattered thought posts have not interacted well here or in many past threads. It has been a problem before. He has been overly warned.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The reigning of Jesus shall be the full fulfillment of Messiah in His Kingdom as seen by the OT Prophets, and there will not be what you described until end time
> 
> I understand, but when someone else posts entire book summaries at times hard to follow.



But you just totally contradicted your previous posts. This is the whole problem with Premil: it doesn't add up. 2+2=4, not 22. In Premil:


Glorified saints and mortal rebels inherit the same new incorruptible earth.
The Premil age of Aquarius sees the majestic unchallenged righteous rule of Christ on earth end in a debacle – with a mass global rebellion by the millennial inhabitants.
We have the biggest religious turn-around in history: from a millennial kingdom where the nations wholesale submit to Christ in righteousness to a mass revival of Satanism as "the sand of the sea." The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as “the sand of the sea” against the “camp of the saints.”
You have the removal of the curse and corruption at the Second Coming and yet sin, death and decay continues and expands.
This undesirable mongrel earth is equally filled with glorified saints and mortal rebels, righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture.
You have the Jewish temple rebuilt even though the eternal temple “not made with hands” is standing on the new earth in all His “power and glory.” You have the eliminated priesthood revived to rival Christ. You have animal sacrifices resurrected after Christ abolished them forever.
You have Christ deceived by these phony religious devotees travelling to Jerusalem every yr to act out their forced worship or else you have Him willingly presiding over a prolonged sham.
You have the lion and lamb enjoying millennial bliss until the slaughter truck pulls up to drag the lambs, goats and bullocks to the temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice in the presence of Jesus. Amazingly, for the first time in history they have no fear of their traditional predators, just supposedly righteous millennial God-ordained priests coming for them with sharp knives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which doesn't phase me one bit. To reduce it to merely terms is to commit the word = concept fallacy. That's precisely what Paul has done in this entire thread (and why I don't really bother anymore).


 
I am not following you here Jacob. What I wrote had a context referring to an economy / dispensation and how interpretations are defined by our understanding of what that dispensation or economy may look like. We all read into that one word things we bring from others into that reading. Everyone does it. I just think there are clearer passages that speak about the things mentioned in that text that help us understand it. The clearer passages help us understand the more obscure passages, such as the binding of Satan.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> But you just totally contradicted your previous posts. This is the whole problem with Premi: it doesn't add up. 2+2=4, not 22. In Premil:
> 
> · Glorified saints and mortal rebels inherit the same new incorruptible earth.
> · The Premil age of Aquarius sees the majestic unchallenged righteous rule of Christ on earth end in a debacle – with a mass global rebellion by the millennial inhabitants.
> · We have the biggest religious turn-around in history: from a millennial kingdom where the nations wholesale submit to Christ in righteousness to a mass revival of Satanism as "the sand of the sea." The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as “the sand of the sea” against the “camp of the saints.”
> · You have the removal of the curse and corruption at the Second Coming and yet sin, death and decay continues and expands.
> · This undesirable mongrel earth is equally filled with glorified saints and mortal rebels, righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture.
> · You have the Jewish temple rebuilt even though the eternal temple “not made with hands” is standing on the new earth in all His “power and glory.” You have the eliminated priesthood revived to rival Christ. You have animal sacrifices resurrected after Christ abolished them forever.
> · You have Christ deceived by these phony religious devotees travelling to Jerusalem every yr to act out their forced worship or else you have Him willingly presiding over a prolonged sham.
> · You have the lion and lamb enjoying millennial bliss until the slaughter truck pulls up to drag the lambs, goats and bullocks to the temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice in the presence of Jesus. Amazingly, for the first time in history they have no fear of their traditional predators, just supposedly righteous millennial God-ordained priests coming for them with sharp knives.


The sacrifices of the Kingdom Age in Zesrth is not in the sense of being salvational elements, but as in ceremonial memorial of what Jesus has already done.
The main points of the Messianic Age will be to have Messiah Jesus reigning in order to show how God intended us to be ruled over in Paradise, and the final rebellion shows to us that what is the problem is not external but internal, as on sinners having wicked hearts
Jesus will not be faked out by what is happening, as He will be ruling over them with rod of iron.
Jesus is ruling from Heaven now, but in a permissive manner, as He allows for many things that will no longer be tolerated, as His reign shall be direct fashion, which will make sure He is worshipped and only He is the living and true God that all humans will dealing with in that time.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not following you here Jacob. What I wrote had a context referring to an economy / dispensation and how interpretations are defined by our understanding of what that dispensation or economy may look like. We all read into that one word things we bring from others into that reading. Everyone does it. I just think there are clearer passages that speak about the things mentioned in that text that help us understand it. The clearer passages help us understand the more obscure passages, such as the binding of Satan.



word = concept fallacy means if the word "millennium" isn't elsewhere used, then the concept isn't either. That is a textbook exegetical fallacy.

Sure, clearer interprets more obscure, but that just begs the question. I think passage x is clearer than y. You think y is clearer than x. Mexican standoff.

In any case, when I was premil I *never* started (or even went to) Revelation 20.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> No, do not do that. Just ask him to simplify and take things topic by topic.
> 
> David has not interacted with me very well and I have not plowed him under with a lot of paragraphs. His two line scattered thought posts have not interacted well here or in many past threads. It has been a problem before. He has been overly warned.


There has to be a medium here, as while I at times have been too short and to the point, other times some have entered into the discussion not in a mode of interaction, but almost as if pushing for their their PhD dissertation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> No, do not do that. Just ask him to simplify and take things topic by topic.
> 
> David has not interacted with me very well and I have not plowed him under with a lot of paragraphs. His two line scattered thought posts have not interacted well here or in many past threads. It has been a problem before. He has been overly warned.



I've certainly disagreed with David int he past, but Paul writers chapter length posts and some of them just fire off questions.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> word = concept fallacy means if the word "millennium" isn't elsewhere used, then the concept isn't either. That is a textbook exegetical fallacy.
> 
> Sure, clearer interprets more obscure, but that just begs the question. I think passage x is clearer than y. You think y is clearer than x. Mexican standoff.
> 
> In any case, when I was premil I *never* started (or even went to) Revelation 20.


Interesting that many liked to say that a premil position died on the Chapter 20 misunderstanding, and get many holding to premil do not really even use that Chspter to reason from the scriptures.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> There has to be a medium here, as while I at times have been too short and to the point, other times some have entered into the discussion not in a mode of interaction, but almost as if pushing for their their PhD dissertation.


At that point David ask them to do what I asked you to do in a prior post. 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> No, do not do that. Just ask him to simplify and take things topic by topic.


I have to deal with bits also. I like to read big portions of things so I understand context but I understand it is hard to address whole chapters. Then deal with the individual topics slowly. If you feel overwhelmed just slow things down. Ask them to slow down and ask them to help you understand what they are getting at as simple as they can. I have to do that. I am rooten for you bud.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The sacrifices of the Kingdom Age in Zesrth is not in the sense of being salvational elements, but as in ceremonial memorial of what Jesus has already done.
> The main points of the Messianic Age will be to have Messiah Jesus reigning in order to show how God intended us to be ruled over in Paradise, and the final rebellion shows to us that what is the problem is not external but internal, as on sinners having wicked hearts
> Jesus will not be faked out by what is happening, as He will be ruling over them with rod of iron.



Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.



Dachaser said:


> Jesus is ruling from Heaven now, but in a permissive manner, as He allows for many things that will no longer be tolerated, as His reign shall be direct fashion, which will make sure Heslone is worshipped and only Hebis the living and true God that amsnkind will deal with in that time



What are you talking about?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?
> 
> Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?
> 
> Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?
> 
> Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?


I was saying that right now God permits sin and evil acts to occur, but under His direct rule here there shall no longer be allowed any open acts of sinning against God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> I was saying that right now God permits sin and evil acts to occur, but under His direct rule here there shall no longer be allowed any open acts of sinning against God.


David, you are replying to the below quote but you didn't interact with any of it. This is a problem. Then you only state the above which doesn't interact with any of his post. David, Start Interacting With The Posts. Warning.



sovereigngrace said:


> Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?
> 
> Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?
> 
> Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?
> 
> Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Interesting that many liked to say that a premil position died on the Chapter 20 misunderstanding, and get many holding to premil do not really even use that Chspter to reason from the scriptures.



That is not true. That is all you have used. What exact Scriptures have you expounded to support Premil on this thread outside of Rev 19/20 theory?

Why have you not addressed my simply apt questions re your statements.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> I was saying that right now God permits sin and evil acts to occur, but under His direct rule here there shall no longer be allowed any open acts of sinning against God.



What has this to do with my questions?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> I was saying that right now God permits sin and evil acts to occur, but under His direct rule here there shall no longer be allowed any open acts of sinning against God.



Where exactly do you get this in the Bible? How can those countless phonies (as the sand of the sea) who overrun your future millennium not sin? After all, they are deceived mortal regenerates?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

sovereigngrace said:


> How can those countless phonies (as the sand of the sea) who overrun your future millennium not sin? After all, they are deceived mortal regenerates?



Paul,

Let's get David to focus on just a few pointed questions. Please don't bombard him with so much. I understand your frustration. Both sides are frustrated right now. Let's take the list I challenged him to interact with please. I jumped in late and Jacob seems frustrated with you too. Maybe we should just pick a few pointed questions each to get answered at a time. Let's not overwhelm each other.

The following was a good list for David to answer. I am sure Jacob has a few points he would like more clarity on. I don't know.


[QUOTE="sovereigngrace

@ Dachaser
Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.


----------



## sovereigngrace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Paul,
> 
> Let's get David to focus on just a few pointed questions. Please don't bombard him with so much. I understand your frustration. Both sides are frustrated right now. Let's take the list I challenged him to interact with please. I jumped in late and Jacob seems frustrated with you too. Maybe we should just pick a few pointed questions each to get answered at a time. Let's not overwhelm each other.
> 
> The following was a good list for David to answer. I am sure Jacob has a few points he would like more clarity on. I don't know.
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="sovereigngrace
> 
> @ Dachaser
> Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?
> 
> Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?
> 
> Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?
> 
> Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.



Sounds good! I agree. I am trying to address each rabbit trail, although nothing is actually getting answered.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This is an old chart developed by Robert L. Whitelaw that I have thought to be very interesting through the years. William Cox had a similar one in his book on Amillennialism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is an old chart developed by Robert L. Whitelaw that I have thought to be very interesting through the years. William Cox had a similar one in his book on Amillennialism.
> 
> View attachment 6438



Excellent chart, and very biblical.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Excellent chart, and very biblical.


How do you view passages such as Isaiah 65, Zechariah 14, and Psalm 72 as an AMil then?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> How do you view passages such as Isaiah 65, Zechariah 14, and Psalm 72 as an AMil then?


Answer Paul's questions first David. Warning....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here they are. 

[QUOTE="sovereigngrace

@ Dachaser
Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.


----------



## RamistThomist

Just an observation: a literal reading of Revelation 20 doesn't entail animal sacrifices. It only does if you couple it with Ezekiel 40-48.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Just an observation: a literal reading of Revelation 20 doesn't entail animal sacrifices. It only does if you couple it with Ezekiel 40-48.



So do you couple it with Ezekiel 40-48, as most Premils do?


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> So do you couple it with Ezekiel 40-48, as most Premils do?



I lean towards no. It's not a big part in my larger hermeneutical grid (and I don't hold to several premil conclusions, though I tend to see a darkening of culture, etc; I've made that clear numerous times in this thread).


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I lean towards no. It's not a big part in my larger hermeneutical grid (and I don't hold to several premil conclusions, though I tend to see a darkening of culture, etc; I've made that clear numerous times in this thread).



I am glad to hear that.

So does death continue in your expected future millennium?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> I am glad to hear that.
> 
> So does death continue in your expected future millennium?


No, as it is paradise restored, as the effect of the Fall is now undone.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> I am glad to hear that.
> 
> So does death continue in your expected future millennium?



Maybe, maybe not. I'm still pursuing other angles. As I said before, all sides have to cheat a bit to make their system work. Premils have the problem of taking Ezek. 40-48 literally. Amils take a crayon and write "church" over the material promises in the OT. I haven't really come across any deal-makers on either side.

Also, I study and write on stuff besides eschatolgoy.


----------



## Dachaser

I tie it into Ezeckiel Temple prophecy, and also into Isaiah, when all of the nations shall travel to Messiah and to pay homage to Him, and to be obeying Him as one true Lord.
Reply to posting 220.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Answer Paul's questions first David. Warning....


Did below, can we address my concerns in those passages now?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Did below, can we address my concerns in those passages now?



There are four questions David. Reply to them in order.

@ Dachaser
Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.

David, I am only trying to guide you in interacting here sufficiently on the Puritanboard. I am not trying to be harsh on you or change your mind about your position. Your interaction method here has to change as we (the staff) have tried to tell you so many times before.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I'm still pursuing other angles. As I said before, all sides have to cheat a bit to make their system work. Premils have the problem of taking Ezek. 40-48 literally. Amils take a crayon and write "church" over the material promises in the OT. I haven't really come across any deal-makers on either side.
> 
> Also, I study and write on stuff besides eschatolgoy.



I don't believe Amils have any such difficulty. Most believe Ezekiel 40-48 is a detailed conditional vision. It was not some distant prophecy, as some suggest.

Ezekiel 43:10 outlines the gist and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.”

Clearly God was making a genuine offer to Israel if they would only repent. Sadly, they didn't and they never entered into the reality of that offer. God simply wanted Israel to “be ashamed of their iniquities.” This was nothing new; in fact, that has always been God’s desire for His people.

Ezekiel 43:11 continues, “And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.”

This improved arrangement was never realised. Scripture and history proves that Israel remained in grievous apostasy. Despite God’s offer of better things, they persisted in their stubborn rebellion. The plan was not therefore realised because of disobedience.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> I tie it into Ezeckiel Temple prophecy, and also into Isaiah, when all of the nations shall travel to Messiah and to pay homage to Him, and to be obeying Him as one true Lord.
> Reply to posting 220.



You have not addressed my questions. I have shown you that the NT forbids your argument.

What are the following for? Whose sins and tresspasses?

*The meat offering* – Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20.

*The sin offering* – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20.

*The trespass offering* – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20.

*The burnt offerings* – Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15.

*The peace offerings* – Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12.

*The drink offerings* – Ezekiel 45:17.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I'm still pursuing other angles. As I said before, all sides have to cheat a bit to make their system work. Premils have the problem of taking Ezek. 40-48 literally. Amils take a crayon and write "church" over the material promises in the OT. I haven't really come across any deal-makers on either side.
> 
> Also, I study and write on stuff besides eschatolgoy.



Who are all the wicked mortals who populate the future Premil millennium and give allegiance to Satan at the end? Basically: where do they come from and what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God that accompanies His return?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Who are all the wicked mortals who populate the future Premil millennium and give allegiance to Satan at the end? Basically: where do they come from and what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God that accompanies His return?


They are those born in that Kingdom age under Christ, and they avoided judgment, as that was not until GWT at end of Messianic Age.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> They are those born in that Kingdom age under Christ, and they avoided judgment, as that was not until GWT at end of Messianic Age.



I was actually addressing that question to Jacob.

I was asking you what sins and tresspasses are removed through your ceremonial sacrifices? 

Jacob doesn't believe in them - you (and most Premils) do.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> They are those born in that Kingdom age under Christ, and they avoided judgment, as that was not until GWT at end of Messianic Age.



Could you furnish me with Scripture that proves this instead of these evasive soundbites? What qualifies this group, who are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified, to escape the wrath of God?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Could you furnish me with Scripture that proves this instead of these evasive soundbites? What qualifies this group, who are manifestly too righteous to be included among the wicked and be destroyed but equally too wicked to be included among the righteous and be glorified, to escape the wrath of God?


Revelation gives to us large numbers of people will be killed during Great Tribulation, but not all shall be killed off, as the Lord Jesus shall rule over those who remained until His Coming again.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> I was actually addressing that question to Jacob.
> 
> I was asking you what sins and tresspasses are removed through your ceremonial sacrifices?
> 
> Jacob doesn't believe in them - you (and most Premils) do.


The memorials are remembering death of Jesus and His resurrection, not in any fashion effectual saving Grace, as all of that comes from Calvary.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Who are all the wicked mortals who populate the future Premil millennium and give allegiance to Satan at the end? Basically: where do they come from and what qualifies them to escape the wrath of God that accompanies His return?



I don't know. I don't lose too much sleep over it. I'm more interested in being able to resist Antichrist in the near future. In any case, as I've made clear a half dozen times in this thread, I am not a pure premillennialist.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> The memorials are remembering death of Jesus and His resurrection, not in any fashion effectual saving Grace, as all of that comes from Calvary.



But where does it teach this in the Bible? It doesn't matter what the Premil books say, where does thee Book teach that? Could you show me actual Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as *memorial sacrifices *on the new earth?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Revelation gives to us large numbers of people will be killed during Great Tribulation, but not all shall be killed off, as the Lord Jesus shall rule over those who remained until His Coming again.



I think you need to read Revelation 19 again. No one survives! Christ is seen pouring out His wrath without mixture upon the nations as He smites them in His fury with “a sharp sword” that comes “out of his mouth.” What is the result of this act? It shall “smite the nations” that have missed the catching away. This is what awaits the nations. They are going to be smitten. The word for “smite” in this text is the Greek word _patasso_, which means to strike with a weapon or to smite fatally. It means to smite down, cut down, to kill, slay.

Jesus smites who?

1. The flesh of kings,
2. The flesh of captains,
3. The flesh of mighty men,
4. The flesh of horses, them that sit on them,
5. The flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

This passage powerfully reveals the extent of the destruction that occurs when Jesus comes. No one survives!


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know. I don't lose too much sleep over it. I'm more interested in being able to resist Antichrist in the near future. In any case, as I've made clear a half dozen times in this thread, I am not a pure premillennialist.



Fair enough.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't know. I don't lose too much sleep over it. I'm more interested in being able to resist Antichrist in the near future. In any case, as I've made clear a half dozen times in this thread, I am not a pure premillennialist.



This is one of many reasons that I abandoned Premillennialism. It wasn't just the lack of corroboration, it was the fact that what Premillennialists impute into Revelation 20 doesn't make sense and largely isn't even in the text. It is totally confusing.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> This is one of many reasons that I abandoned Premillennialism. It wasn't just the lack of corroboration, it was the fact that what Premillennialists impute into Revelation 20 doesn't make sense and largely isn't even in the text. It is totally confusing.



Maybe. I don't find it totally confusing. If I were to write a book on it and were subsequently overwhelmed by the problems you say are there, then maybe. Sure, problems are there. Any human system has problems and tensions.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe. I don't find it totally confusing. If I were to write a book on it and were subsequently overwhelmed by the problems you say are there, then maybe. Sure, problems are there. Any human system has problems and tensions.



One just has to read this thread to see that Premil has no clear biblical support for its fundamentals. Its main tenets cannot be fully explained, as they do not add up or make sense.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe. I don't find it totally confusing. If I were to write a book on it and were subsequently overwhelmed by the problems you say are there, then maybe. Sure, problems are there. Any human system has problems and tensions.



There is no corroboration that Satan will be bound for 1000 years in the future and then released to deceive countless billions who have sat under the unparalleled righteous rule of Christ on earth.

But there is multiple scripture to support the Amillennial position. Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection.

Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> There is no corroboration that Satan will be bound for 1000 years in the future and then released to deceive countless billions who have sat under the unparalleled righteous rule of Christ on earth.
> 
> But there is multiple scripture to support the Amillennial position. Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection.
> 
> Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.



This response sort of illustrates an observation I made earlier (like page 1 or 2) in this thread: you have the same stock response to almost every other post. And since you implied that premils have the same outlook as Mormons who baptize for the dead, I can do one better: those who talk about nothing but eschatology sound a lot like hyper-preterists who talk of nothing but eschatology.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> One just has to read this thread to see that Premil has no clear biblical support for its fundamentals. Its main tenets cannot be fully explained, as they do not add up or make sense.



In logic that is called an assertion. Or two of them.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> This response sort of illustrates an observation I made earlier (like page 1 or 2) in this thread: you have the same stock response to almost every other post. And since you implied that premils have the same outlook as Mormons who baptize for the dead, I can do one better: those who talk about nothing but eschatology sound a lot like hyper-preterists who talk of nothing but eschatology.



Ad hominem is a common tactic of Premils online when they are challenged. Basically: 'if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger'. My reference to Mormonism was questioning the rubbishing of corroboration, which Premils do all the time. That is not the Reformed way! I stand by it.

It is time for Premils to actually address the topic under discussion. *What is the purpose of your future millennium? *248 posts and we have nothing but avoidance and evasion.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> In logic that is called an assertion. Or two of them.



No, it is called facts (and facts are stubborn things)!!!


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Ad hominem is a common tactic of Premils online when they are challenged. Basically: 'if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger'. My reference to Mormonism was questioning the rubbishing of corroboration, which Premils do all the time. That is not the Reformed way! I stand by it.



This is special pleading, meaning "Basically it's okay when I do it." Maybe I should throw in some !!!! for emphasis. 

You get to imply we are Mormons but when we point out that you, like full preterists, talk about nothing but eschatology, it's suddenly ad hominem.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> No, it is called facts (and facts are stubborn things)!!!



They aren't self-evident facts. As the statement itself stands, it's just an assertion.


----------



## RamistThomist

You seem to get triggered any time there is the possibility that a premillennialist online exists, or even if someone doesn't agree with all of your analysis yet himself isn't premil.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> You seem to get triggered any time there is the possibility that a premillennialist online exists, or even if someone doesn't agree with all of your analysis yet himself isn't premil.



I am happy that observers can judge for themselves who is addressing the issues and who is not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> They aren't self-evident facts. As the statement itself stands, it's just an assertion.



It is time for Premils to actually address the topic under discussion. *What is the purpose of your future millennium? *254 posts and we still have nothing but avoidance and evasion.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Paul (or others) Do any premil commentators express a purpose for their version of the millennium? Following the thread I’ve become curious about this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Paul (or others) Do any premil commentators express a purpose for their version of the millennium? Following the thread I’ve become curious about this.


we would see this as when all of the enemies of Jesus are placed under His feet, and that the Messianic Age foreseen by OT prophets like Zechariah and Isaiah was Literally fulfillenment of the Kingdom in full upon the Earth.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> It is time for Premils to actually address the topic under discussion. *What is the purpose of your future millennium? *254 posts and we still have nothing but avoidance and evasion.


Literal fulfillment of passages such as Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 65.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Literal fulfillment of passages such as Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 65.



What exactly in those two chapters need to be fulfilled? Where do they mention some suppose future millennium?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> What exactly in those two chapters need to be fulfilled? Where do they mention some suppose future millennium?


In that time, of Messianic Age, both saw all Earth converted to true God, Isreal restored under Messiah, and all of the nations worshipping only Yahweh. No more wst, famine, sickness, as curse lifted and now Paradise restored.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> In that time, of Messianic Age, both saw all Earth converted to true God, Isreal restored under Messiah, and all of the nations worshipping only Yahweh. No more wst, famine, sickness, as curse lifted and now Paradise restored.



Where does it say that?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> we would see this as when all of the enemies of Jesus are placed under His feet, and that the Messianic Age foreseen by OT prophets like Zechariah and Isaiah was Literally fulfillenment of the Kingdom in full upon the Earth.


But all the enemies of Jesus are not yet placed under his feet in this version of the millennium. Death is not. And there is yet to come a rebellion, correct?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Jeri Tanner said:


> Paul (or others) Do any premil commentators express a purpose for their version of the millennium? Following the thread I’ve become curious about this.



Thanks for your question!

Premils pull three major thoughts together, which result in their future millennial expectation: (1) their hyper-literal approach to OT prophecies requires a future fulfilment of the OT prophets predictions of a physical visible earthly zionist kingdom, on this earth, overseen by Christ, who they say will be reign from physical Jerusalem with a rod of iron. (2) They take the binding of Satan as literal, and argue that this is still not fulfilled because he still runs about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Premil sees the binding of Satan as a physical confinement in a physical pit, where he is allowed no contact with humans. (3) Because of their understanding of Ezekiel 40-47 and Zechariah 14 they foresee the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement in the future, including the re-introduce the abolished meat offerings sin offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings peace offerings and drink offerings. They also anticipate the raising up again of the Levitical priesthood.

Because of this, they anticipate this millennial age to be an age of Aquarius where sin, death, war and the wicked are banished or subjugated. It is a pristine earth where people live long lives, where the earth submits to the kingship of Christ, where the saints experience unparalleled material and natural blessing.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> In that time, of Messianic Age, both saw all Earth converted to true God, Isreal restored under Messiah, and all of the nations worshipping only Yahweh. No more wst, famine, sickness, as curse lifted and now Paradise restored.



Your bipolar new earth is an unhealthy mixture of justice and injustice, deliverance and bondage, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, perfection and sin, glorification and corruption, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jeri Tanner said:


> Paul (or others) Do any premil commentators express a purpose for their version of the millennium? Following the thread I’ve become curious about this.



Depends on the school of thought. For a dispensationalist everything is Israel. Leaving them aside, it just depends on the commentator. An exegete like Robert Mounce would say, "This is what I see the text saying. As to secret purposes, I leave that to others."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> This response sort of illustrates an observation I made earlier (like page 1 or 2) in this thread: you have the same stock response to almost every other post. And since you implied that premils have the same outlook as Mormons who baptize for the dead, I can do one better: those who talk about nothing but eschatology sound a lot like hyper-preterists who talk of nothing but eschatology.


I have many responses and application from scripture based on the those scriptures Paul mentions. (1) Christ was given a Universal Kingdom based upon his Person and Work. (2) Lucifer has lost and is on open display and is bound from keeping the Nations of the world in darkness. Christ has purchased men from every nation. (3) The Church consists of both Jew and non-Jew now as all who are of the faith are noted to be Children of Abraham by faith. The gentile is grafted into the Olive tree. 4) The Gospel will go forth to every nation, tongue and tribe even though it will be opposed. But Satan can't stop it where the King has ordained it should go. 

I also believe that the premil understanding gives the opportunity for evil to set up a hope for an earthly supposed utopia in which a reigning monarch will will deceive at the very last. 

I don't believe he said you have the same outlook as Mormons. It was a comparison of both sides having the same methods for coming to a conclusion about something if I understood him.

Jacob, I appreciate Paul's work on this as it has root causes for why we do what we do in evangelism and why we shouldn't look for a golden utopia on this side of the final consummation. I was heavily involve in this kind of study over three decades ago because I was also surrounded by Premil thinking. It was invading sermons with very poor application. People were clambering to figure out the book of Revelation without any personal application for their lives. Some people might have thought it consumed me. But I sensed the applications and warnings were significant. There were root causes for doing what was right and dangers to be avoided. I believe this kind of work helped in that. Especially when you live amongst others who read booklets and evangelized based upon the latest Hal Lindsey book, It also set the study of scripture to focus in a different way. This removes the wasted time with the latest Clarence Larkin and Premil charts to focusing on the things that do matter, Christ's Mediatorial Kingship and Kingdom.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> But all the enemies of Jesus are not yet placed under his feet in this version of the millennium. Death is not. And there is yet to come a rebellion, correct?


Yes, as death will be the final enemy conquered, and after the rebellion comes the eternal state, when Jesus turns His kingdom over to the Father.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have many responses and application from scripture based on the those scriptures Paul mentions. (1) Christ was given a Universal Kingdom based upon his Person and Work. (2) Lucifer has lost and is on open display and is bound from keeping the Nations of the world in darkness. Christ has purchased men from every nation. (3) The Church consists of both Jew and non-Jew now as all who are of the faith are noted to be Children of Abraham by faith. The gentile is grafted into the Olive tree. 4) The Gospel will go forth to every nation, tongue and tribe even though it will be opposed. But Satan can't stop it where the King has ordained it should go.
> 
> I also believe that the premil understanding gives the opportunity for evil to set up a hope for an earthly supposed utopia in which a reigning monarch will will deceive at the very last.
> 
> I don't believe he said you have the same outlook as Mormons. It was a comparison of both sides having the same methods for coming to a conclusion about something if I understood him.
> 
> Jacob, I appreciate Paul's work on this as it has root causes for why we do what we do in evangelism and why we shouldn't look for a golden utopia on this side of the final consummation. I was heavily involve in this kind of study almost three decades ago because I was also surrounded by Premil thinking. It was invading sermons with very poor application. Some people might have thought it consumed me. But I sensed the applications and warnings were significant. There were root causes for doing what was right and dangers to be avoided. I believe this kind of work helped in that. Especially when you live amongst others who read booklets and evangelized based upon the latest Hal Lindsey book, It also set the study of scripture to focus in a different way. This removes the wasted time with the latest Clarence Larkin and Premil charts to focusing on the things that do matter, Christ's Mediatorial Kingship and Kingdom.


We see the Messianic Age as far more than just the one where the spiritual kingdom is established, as we indeed see the binding of Satan to be as Him no longer to receive and also time if Paradise restored, as end times showed Earth under Antichrist, and afterwards, as ruled by true Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Your bipolar new earth is an unhealthy mixture of justice and injustice, deliverance and bondage, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, perfection and sin, glorification and corruption, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror.


How can any of that be when God himself is ruling over Mankind in A direct fashion then?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> We see the Messianic Age as far more than just the one where the spiritual kingdom is established, as we indeed see the binding of Satan to be as Him no longer to receive and also time if Paradise restored, as end times showed Earth under Antichrist, and afterwards, as ruled by true Christ.


You didn't deal with anything in my post David. As usual. Just stop it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

David, You still have not answered these 4 questions properly. I see you tried to answer one. Please answer them. 

@ Dachaser
1)Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

2)Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

3)Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

4)Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.

St. Paul gives us what will happen and there is no earthly set up as you describe in his theology.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also David, in your previous assertion that the supposed eartly millennium sacrifices will be set up for a memorial of the work of Christ is non-sense. Christ Jesus himself already gave us the cup and the bread for that. Do we need to study the significance and longevity of that?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, You still have not answered these 4 questions properly. I see you tried to answer one. Please answer them.
> 
> @ Dachaser
> 1)Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?
> 
> 2)Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?
> 
> 3)Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?
> 
> 4)Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.
> 
> St. Paul gives us what will happen and there is no earthly set up as you describe in his theology.
> 
> 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
> 1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
> 1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


I will try to give my answers here, but just curious, as to why Premils like myself seem to always get shouted down here, as when we give what we believe scriptures are teaching get put down?


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> do in evangelism and why we shouldn't look for a golden utopia on this side of the final consummation.



Agreed.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> I was heavily involve in this kind of study over three decades ago because I was also surrounded by Premil thinking. It was invading sermons with very poor application



I don't know about your personal experience, but in my personal experience I have heard 1 sermon on eschatology in 3 decades, and this includes both amil churches and SBC churches.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> . Especially when you live amongst others who read booklets and evangelized based upon the latest Hal Lindsey book, It also set the study of scripture to focus in a different way. This removes the wasted time with the latest Clarence Larkin and Premil charts to focusing on the things that do matter, Christ's Mediatorial Kingship and Kingdom.



That's a red herring. Every premil guy I have read with the exception of Mark Hitchcock has condemned the date-setting "chart" mindset.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Also David, in your previous assertion that the supposed eartly millennium sacrifices will be set up for a memorial of the work of Christ is non-sense. Christ Jesus himself already gave us the cup and the bread for that. Do we need to study the significance and longevity of that?


This explains it quite real from a premil viewpoint
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...-do-the-sacrifices-return-in-ezekiels-temple/
https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's a red herring. Every premil guy I have read with the exception of Mark Hitchcock has condemned the date-setting "chart" mindset.


It isn't just the date setting mindset. It is the wasted time of making and encouraged studying of charts based upon the assumptions and interpretations of the book of Revelation based upon pour genre misapplication and poor hermeneutics as well as misapplied passages from Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> This explains it quite real from a premil viewpoint
> https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...-do-the-sacrifices-return-in-ezekiels-temple/
> https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html


David, You give me an explanation and back it up by scripture. You. You can do that by answering the four questions.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I haven't considered the premil position in a while, since I've been amil for quite a few years now, but thinking about the prospect of the glorious return of our Lord to a world still filled with wickedness and able to plot and gnash its teeth against him leaves me aghast (I find). "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom..." (2 Timothy 4:1); "For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, "Peace and safety,' then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."; "...when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). What in the world does a premil do with those verses?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also David, I gave you the Lord's supper in full view as the Lord's means to bring into remembrance of his work. Those sights said exactly what I thought they would and it is poor... NO, BAD ASSUMPTION that the sacrificial system will be a good reminder. To replace the cup and bread is blasphemous in my estimation. It is what our LORD instituted. No where has he said we will go back to the weak and beggarly shadows. That is absurd. We are warned from doing that.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It isn't just the date setting mindset. It is the wasted time of making and encouraged studying of charts based upon the assumptions and interpretations of the book of Revelation based upon pour genre misapplication and poor hermeneutics as well as misapplied passages from Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.



And no one here has done that. I've simply set forth some exegetical observations, noted some difficulties, and that's that. Your concerns are justified by misplaced. The people who need to hear that are probably the ones making "Boomer Evangelical Tours for Israel."


----------



## RamistThomist

Jeri Tanner said:


> but thinking about the prospect of the glorious return of our Lord to a world still filled with wickedness and able to plot and gnash its teeth against him leaves me aghast (I find).



Every position, except some varieties of postmillennialism, has Jesus returning to a world filled with evil.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> And no one here has done that.


You must be reading a different thread. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. It isn't the charts alone. The charts are based upon teaching. It is the teaching that the charts signify. Just type in Chart of Revelation or of the Bible and you will get a load full of stuff that is overly full of assumption and misapplied scripture. It is mind boggling. It is a way for the Christian to be misdirected from Messiah the Prince's Mediatorial Kingdom and Kingship. It is a poor Christology. Christology is the root doctrine effected by this stuff.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> Depends on the school of thought. For a dispensationalist everything is Israel. Leaving them aside, it just depends on the commentator. An exegete like Robert Mounce would say, "This is what I see the text saying. As to secret purposes, I leave that to others."





Dachaser said:


> How can any of that be when God himself is ruling over Mankind in A direct fashion then?



How possibly can you argue that? How can you say there will be no sin, corruption and death when your millennial kingdom is overrun by countless religious phonies (as the sand of the sea), who obviously feign their submission to Christ, yet when Satan appears, they swiftly rally to his side? This is insane! Also, you have the greatest battle in history at the end of the pre-millennial millennium, when the wicked under the command of Satan surround Christ and the glorified saints as a sand of the sea. Your millennium of bliss is a total bust!

How can these billions of mortal wicked not sin or die? Also, you have the lion and lamb enjoying millennial bliss until the slaughter truck pulls up to drag the lambs, goats and bullocks to the temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice in the presence of Jesus. Amazingly, for the first time in history they have no fear of their traditional predators, just supposedly righteous millennial God-ordained priests coming for them with sharp knives.

Sin and death are everywhere in your supposed future age of aquarius.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Christology is the root doctrine effected by this stuff.


I now sure see how that's so. 


BayouHuguenot said:


> Every position, except some varieties of postmillennialism, has Jesus returning to a world filled with evil.


Just to be clear, amillenialism has Christ returning to destroy evil and rescue his people. He will not dwell again with the wicked (he did that the first time)


----------



## sovereigngrace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Also David, in your previous assertion that the supposed eartly millennium sacrifices will be set up for a memorial of the work of Christ is non-sense. Christ Jesus himself already gave us the cup and the bread for that. Do we need to study the significance and longevity of that?



Exactly, and there is a termination point for that remembrance.

1 Corinthians 11:24-26 declares, “when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”

We no longer need to look back when He appears because we will be looking into the face of the glorified victorious Christ.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Jeri Tanner said:


> Just to be clear, amillenialism has Christ returning to destroy evil and rescue his people. He will not dwell again with the wicked (he did that the first time)



Correct!


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, You give me an explanation and back it up by scripture. You. You can do that by answering the four questions.


Those sources that I cited were giving in better fashion what my thoughts are in regards to the questions posted, as I do think that those of us here who are not Amil seem to be getting undue burden on proving our points in regards to the Second Coming of the Lord.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> I will try to give my answers here, but just curious, as to why Premils like myself seem to always get shouted down here, as when we give what we believe scriptures are teaching get put down?



Where are you Scriptures?


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> I haven't considered the premil position in a while, since I've been amil for quite a few years now, but thinking about the prospect of the glorious return of our Lord to a world still filled with wickedness and able to plot and gnash its teeth against him leaves me aghast (I find). "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom..." (2 Timothy 4:1); "For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, "Peace and safety,' then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."; "...when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). What in the world does a premil do with those verses?


 b
You are not quite understanding the Premil position, as we do not see it in that fashion, for even your AMil position rightly would state that when Jesus comes back, most of the world will be in open rebellion against Him and His ways, for is it not the truth that all positions on the end times would have Jesus coming back to a world and a race who pretty much has decided to attempt to shut God out of their affairs?


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Also David, I gave you the Lord's supper in full view as the Lord's means to bring into remembrance of his work. Those sights said exactly what I thought they would and it is poor... NO, BAD ASSUMPTION that the sacrificial system will be a good reminder. To replace the cup and bread is blasphemous in my estimation. It is what our LORD instituted. No where has he said we will go back to the weak and beggarly shadows. That is absurd. We are warned from doing that.


Again, i was asked to address what my position was as a premil , so why the continual put down of my position, as this is really due to how one understands the prophetic elemt in scripture, as to how much is spiritually and how much is literal fulfillment?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> This explains it quite real from a premil viewpoint
> https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...-do-the-sacrifices-return-in-ezekiels-temple/
> https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html



We cannot debate these writers here. So you need to defend the teaching you receive from your Premil influencers:

How do you reconcile the following?

Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:12 says, "this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Hebrews 10:18 says, "there is no more offering for sin."

Hebrews 10:26 says, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

Why would any Bible believing Christian advocate the restart of the pointless useless old covenant system when Christ superseded it which an effective and superior and final system - the new covenant?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> b
> You are not quite understanding the Premil position, as we do not see it in that fashion, for even your AMil position rightly would state that when Jesus comes back, most of the world will be in open rebellion against Him and His ways, for is it not the truth that all positions on the end times would have Jesus coming back to a world and a race who pretty much has decided to attempt to shut God out of their affairs?


Your position has evil persisting after he comes. That's the difference. The Scriptures I quoted show that his coming brings instant destruction to all his and our enemies. Do you interpret those Scriptures differently? Please read them again and let me know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Every position, except some varieties of postmillennialism, has Jesus returning to a world filled with evil.


That is indeed true, as that would be a main reason for the premil position, as we do not see the Lord Jesus having all of his enemies being put down under Him until that glorious Messianic Age.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You must be reading a different thread. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. It isn't the charts alone. The charts are based upon teaching. It is the teaching that the charts signify. Just type in Chart of Revelation or of the Bible and you will get a load full of stuff that is overly full of assumption and misapplied scripture. It is mind boggling. It is a way for the Christian to be misdirected from Messiah the Prince's Mediatorial Kingdom and Kingship. It is a poor Christology. Christology is the root doctrine effected by this stuff.


I do not see at all how one view upon the Person of Jesus is affected by how they view Eschatology!


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> b
> You are not quite understanding the Premil position, as we do not see it in that fashion, for even your AMil position rightly would state that when Jesus comes back, most of the world will be in open rebellion against Him and His ways, for is it not the truth that all positions on the end times would have Jesus coming back to a world and a race who pretty much has decided to attempt to shut God out of their affairs?



Yes, but Christ does not come to set up more of the same. He is coming to destroy all sin, rebellion, corruption, death and Satan. The Premil millennium is a disaster. It is just a rerun of our age. Rather than the Premil new earth being a progressively glorious age (as they like to portray), it regressively degenerates into turmoil, tears and tragedy. Rather than the wicked and wickedness being subjugated, the opposite occurs – they prosper and increase.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> How possibly can you argue that? How can you say there will be no sin, corruption and death when your millennial kingdom is overrun by countless religious phonies (as the sand of the sea), who obviously feign their submission to Christ, yet when Satan appears, they swiftly rally to his side? This is insane! Also, you have the greatest battle in history at the end of the pre-millennial millennium, when the wicked under the command of Satan surround Christ and the glorified saints as a sand of the sea. Your millennium of bliss is a total bust!
> 
> How can these billions of mortal wicked not sin or die? Also, you have the lion and lamb enjoying millenniaat all of nature has the curse lifted from creation at time of Second Coming, whem the saints will be glorifiedl bliss until the slaughter truck pulls up to drag the lambs, goats and bullocks to the temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice in the presence of Jesus. Amazingly, for the first time in history they have no fear of their traditional predators, just supposedly righteous millennial God-ordained priests coming for them with sharp knives.
> 
> Sin and death are everywhere in your supposed future age of aquarius.


I see that you are still misunderstanding the classic premil position, as we would hold that the creation/nature itself will have the curse placed upon it by God lifted at time of Second Coming, when the saints are glorified, and so that will indeed be the timne foretold when children shall handle snakes, lions and lambs lie down together. The end time rebellion is when God shows to us that a perfect environment does not mean all is well, as a multitude will abide by obeying Jesus due to Him having rod of iron, but their hearts are still far from him, as shown by final rebellion. Jesus knows that those still of the flesh can be tempted, so satan shut away for all but end of His reign!


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Your position has evil persisting after he comes. That's the difference. The Scriptures I quoted show that his coming brings instant destruction to all his and our enemies. Do you interpret those Scriptures differently? Please read them again and let me know.


His coming will end Armageddon and cause massive deaths, but there shall be survivors to enter into his Kingdom rule.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> We cannot debate these writers here. So you need to defend the teaching you receive from your Premil influencers:
> 
> How do you reconcile the following?
> 
> Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
> 
> Hebrews 10:12 says, "this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
> 
> Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
> 
> Hebrews 10:18 says, "there is no more offering for sin."
> 
> Hebrews 10:26 says, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."
> 
> Why would any Bible believing Christian advocate the restart of the pointless useless old covenant system when Christ superseded it which an effective and superior and final system - the new covenant?





sovereigngrace said:


> We cannot debate these writers here. So you need to defend the teaching you receive from your Premil influencers:
> 
> How do you reconcile the following?
> 
> Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
> 
> Hebrews 10:12 says, "this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
> 
> Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
> 
> Hebrews 10:18 says, "there is no more offering for sin."
> 
> Hebrews 10:26 says, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."
> 
> Why would any Bible believing Christian advocate the restart of the pointless useless old covenant system when Christ superseded it which an effective and superior and final system - the new covenant?


Where are you getting this falsehood that those of us advocating for the premil position see the OT sacrifices offered up sins being reestablishment of Christ? We would see them as being memorials to what he already has done for His redeemed, under the scriptures that you cited, and not as a means to have sins forgiven or as a means of salvation.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> That is indeed true, as that would be a main reason for the premil position, as we do not see the Lord Jesus having all of his enemies being put down under Him until that glorious Messianic Age.



He is ruling over them now. He is putting them down now. One by one they are under His feet! 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, stating, *“**For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his Coming. *_*Then* _(or _eita_ or thereupon) *cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down* (or _katargeésee_ or abolished) *all rule and all authority and power.”
*
1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us that “all rule and all authority and power” are finally “put down” or _katargeésee_ or abolished at the “Coming” or _parousia_ of the Lord, which is, as we have established, confirmed in the next sentence as “the end.” The kingdom of God is finally and eternally presented “_up,_” whereas the kingdom of darkness is finally and eternally “_put down_.” It is this all-consummating last day that ushers in the end (or completion) of all things.

Paul reinforce his point in regard to the concluding nature of Christ’s return, and how it spells the termination of death and rebellion, 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, saying: *“For* [Gr. _gar_ or seeing] *he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For ‘he hath put’ *(aorist active indicative) *all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be*  [Gr. _hupotageé_] *subdued* (or subordinated) *unto him* (speaking of the Second Coming), *then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all”* (1 Corinthians 15:25-28).

After telling us that Christ’s Coming sees the termination of the wicked and their evil operations, the writer tells us that Christ’s reign over His enemies must continue until this climactic point. Whilst “all power” is now assuredly given unto Christ “in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18) through His life, death and resurrection, and whilst through this victorious work “he hath put all things under his feet” in a sovereign manner, we have not yet seen the final subduing of wickedness. This comes at the Second Coming of the Lord.

Paul is simply reinforcing the thought that he just stated about the climactic Coming of Christ. It is the time _“when he shall have put down (or abolished) all rule and all authority and power.”_ 1 Corinthians 15 verses 24 and 28 repeat the same all-consummating truth.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Yes, but Christ does not come to set up more of the same. He is coming to destroy all sin, rebellion, corruption, death and Satan. The Premil millennium is a disaster. It is just a rerun of our age. Rather than the Premil new earth being a progressively glorious age (as they like to portray), it regressively degenerates into turmoil, tears and tragedy. Rather than the wicked and wickedness being subjugated, the opposite occurs – they prosper and increase.


How can there be a disaster when the Lord Jesus Himself is the ruler and the One administering justice in that time? Is God somehow not able to make it work as it should be, especially after Jesus has lifted the curse of the Fall upon creation at His returning?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Where are you getting that those holding to premil view the offerings as being exactly same fashion as those done under the OC were? As we wou
> 
> Where are you getting this falsehood that those of us advocating for the premil position see the OT sacrifices offered up sins being reestablishment of Christ? We would see them as being memorials to what he already has done for His redeemed, under the scriptures that you cited, and not as a means to have sins forgiven or as a means of salvation.



Once again, where does it teach this in the Bible? It doesn't matter what the Premil books say, where does thee Book teach that? Could you show me actual Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as *memorial sacrifices* on the new earth?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> He is ruling over them now. He is putting them down now. One by one they are under His feet! 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, stating, *“**For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his Coming. *_*Then* _(or _eita_ or thereupon) *cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down* (or _katargeésee_ or abolished) *all rule and all authority and power.”
> *
> 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us that “all rule and all authority and power” are finally “put down” or _katargeésee_ or abolished at the “Coming” or _parousia_ of the Lord, which is, as we have established, confirmed in the next sentence as “the end.” The kingdom of God is finally and eternally presented “_up,_” whereas the kingdom of darkness is finally and eternally “_put down_.” It is this all-consummating last day that ushers in the end (or completion) of all things.
> 
> Paul reinforce his point in regard to the concluding nature of Christ’s return, and how it spells the termination of death and rebellion, 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, saying: *“For* [Gr. _gar_ or seeing] *he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For ‘he hath put’ *(aorist active indicative) *all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be*  [Gr. _hupotageé_] *subdued* (or subordinated) *unto him* (speaking of the Second Coming), *then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all”* (1 Corinthians 15:25-28).
> 
> After telling us that Christ’s Coming sees the termination of the wicked and their evil operations, the writer tells us that Christ’s reign over His enemies must continue until this climactic point. Whilst “all power” is now assuredly given unto Christ “in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18) through His life, death and resurrection, and whilst through this victorious work “he hath put all things under his feet” in a sovereign manner, we have not yet seen the final subduing of wickedness. This comes at the Second Coming of the Lord.
> 
> Paul is simply reinforcing the thought that he just stated about the climactic Coming of Christ. It is the time _“when he shall have put down (or abolished) all rule and all authority and power.”_ 1 Corinthians 15 verses 24 and 28 repeat the same all-consummating truth.


We would agree that Jesus will be turning over His KIngdom to the Father, but do not agree that Jesus will have put down all of His enemies apart from that being made literally true during His reign here upon the restored earth.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> How can there be a disaster when the Lord Jesus Himself is the ruler and the One administering justice in that time? Is God somehow not able to make it work as it should be, especially after Jesus has lifted the curse of the Fall upon creation at His returning?



LOL. How is the curse lifted if the earth is polluted by billions of religious unregenerates?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Once again, where does it teach this in the Bible? It doesn't matter what the Premil books say, where does thee Book teach that? Could you show me actual Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as *memorial sacrifices* on the new earth?


Ezekiel, but we would disagree on how to interpret what was being meant by the Prophet there!


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> LOL. How is the curse lifted if the earth is polluted by billions of religious unregenerates?


Paul stated in Romans that when Jesus returns and once we become glorified, that even nature/creation itself longs for that day, to have the curse lifted off it!


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> We would agree that Jesus will be turning over His KIngdom to the Father, but do not agree that Jesus will have put down all of His enemies apart from that being made literally true during His reign here upon the restored earth.



The “coming” of the Lord, described in this reading, is here carefully located at “the end.” In fact, the whole tenure of the passage is distinctly pointing to a climactic time in history when God separates righteousness and wickedness forever. It is the occasion approaching when Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and will have, as He promised, “put down all rule and all authority and power.” Simultaneously, the glorification of the kingdom of God sees the destruction of the kingdom of darkness. It is the end-game for Satan and the conclusion of his evil efforts to obstruct the plan of God for mankind. Wickedness has finally and eternally been abolished.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> The “coming” of the Lord, described in this reading, is here carefully located at “the end.” In fact, the whole tenure of the passage is distinctly pointing to a climactic time in history when God separates righteousness and wickedness forever. It is the occasion approaching when Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and will have, as He promised, “put down all rule and all authority and power.” Simultaneously, the glorification of the kingdom of God sees the destruction of the kingdom of darkness. It is the end-game for Satan and the conclusion of his evil efforts to obstruct the plan of God for mankind. Wickedness has finally and eternally been abolished.


It happens immediately after the Great White Throne judgment, whch would be after Chapter 20 of Revelation, after the rule of Jesus, when all of the lost will then be resurrected up and judged.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Paul stated in Romans that when Jesus returns and once we become glorified, that even nature/creation itself longs for that day, to have the curse lifted off it!



Exactly! Repeated Scripture forbids the Premil scenario of a continuation of, and increase in, corruption, death and rebellion. Romans 8 refutes your theory. Amil conforms to repeated Scripture that confirms the earth will be banished forever of all corruption, death and rebellion when Jesus comes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> His coming will end Armageddon and cause massive deaths, but there shall be survivors to enter into his Kingdom rule.


David I know posts are being thrown your way, and this will be my last one. I don't want you to feel attacked by me, but just wanted to say this last thing. When the Lord Jesus Christ comes it will be to put an end to all wickedness and to judge the living and the dead. He is not coming to an interim something where there are still plottings and evil. That would be so beneath his dignity. No evil can stand before the fire of his coming. He will bring all hidden things to light and destroy death forever. I understand your position because I held to it also. Read the Scripture I posted and ask yourself, how is this not describing a complete work by Christ when he comes, the end of all suffering and death and evil.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> It happens immediately after the Great White Throne judgment, whch would be after Chapter 20 of Revelation, after the rule of Jesus, when all of the lost will then be resurrected up and judged.



Read 1 Corinthians 15:22-24: *“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming*. *Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power**.”
*
Where possibly can you find your supposed future millennium here? It is watertight and allows no room for your doctrine. You have to force it into text after text that the Holy Spirit forgot to do. The reality is, it will never happen. Your battle is with the sacred text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Ezekiel, but we would disagree on how to interpret what was being meant by the Prophet there!



Why would any Bible believing Christian advocate the restart of the pointless useless old covenant system when Christ superseded it with an effective, superior and final system - the new covenant?

Hebrews 10:12 says, *"this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” *

Hebrews 10:14 says, *“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” *

Hebrews 10:18 says, *"there is no more offering for sin."*

Hebrews 10:26 says, *"there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." 
*

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Ezekiel, but we would disagree on how to interpret what was being meant by the Prophet there!



Where does Ezekiel (or any other Bible writer) say the sacrifices are memorial? Where does he say they pertain to an age after the second coming? Where does he mention a supposed future millennium?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jeri Tanner said:


> Just to be clear, amillenialism has Christ returning to destroy evil and rescue his people. He will not dwell again with the wicked (he did that the first time)



Perhaps, but that's not what your initial quote said (though I figured that's probably what you meant).


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> How possibly can you argue that? How can you say there will be no sin, corruption and death when your millennial kingdom is overrun by countless religious phonies (as the sand of the sea), who obviously feign their submission to Christ, yet when Satan appears, they swiftly rally to his side? This is insane! Also, you have the greatest battle in history at the end of the pre-millennial millennium, when the wicked under the command of Satan surround Christ and the glorified saints as a sand of the sea. Your millennium of bliss is a total bust!
> 
> How can these billions of mortal wicked not sin or die? Also, you have the lion and lamb enjoying millennial bliss until the slaughter truck pulls up to drag the lambs, goats and bullocks to the temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice in the presence of Jesus. Amazingly, for the first time in history they have no fear of their traditional predators, just supposedly righteous millennial God-ordained priests coming for them with sharp knives.
> 
> Sin and death are everywhere in your supposed future age of aquarius.



You tagged me in this quote but (as usual) I fail to see how it is relevant to anything I said. Also note you are associating people with Age of Aquarius, but you get upset when people point out similarities between yourself and full preterists.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You must be reading a different thread. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. It isn't the charts alone. The charts are based upon teaching. It is the teaching that the charts signify. Just type in Chart of Revelation or of the Bible and you will get a load full of stuff that is overly full of assumption and misapplied scripture. It is mind boggling. It is a way for the Christian to be misdirected from Messiah the Prince's Mediatorial Kingdom and Kingship. It is a poor Christology. Christology is the root doctrine effected by this stuff.



Then I don't know why you brought charts up at all, unless David introduced a timeline I didn't see. 

As for poor Christology, I'll leave that to others. I've forgotten more about Patristic Christology than most seminaries actually teach. I am not boasting, as I started studying Patristic Christology because RTS dropped the ball on that course when I was there.


----------



## sovereigngrace

BayouHuguenot said:


> You tagged me in this quote but (as usual) I fail to see how it is relevant to anything I said. Also note you are associating people with Age of Aquarius, but you get upset when people point out similarities between yourself and full preterists.



Please stop avoiding the issues. The argument stands solid and unanswered, like countless simple questions in this discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Please stop avoiding the issues. The argument stands solid and unanswered, like countless simple questions in this discussion.



Again, that may be so but it has nothing to do with what you tagged in the quote.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> Then I don't know why you brought charts up at all, unless David introduced a timeline I didn't see.


You were responding to this Jacob. It wasn't just about the charts. Read the whole context of the post before this one you are responding to. 

I said,
"It isn't just the date setting mindset. It is the wasted time of making and encouraged studying of charts *based upon the assumptions and interpretations of the book of Revelation based upon pour genre misapplication and poor hermeneutics as well as misapplied passages..."*



PuritanCovenanter said:


> It isn't just the date setting mindset. It is the wasted time of making and encouraged studying of charts based upon the assumptions and interpretations of the book of Revelation based upon pour genre misapplication and poor hermeneutics as well as misapplied passages from Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.



Jacob you are going around in circles now. SMH


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Exactly! Repeated Scripture forbids the Premil scenario of a continuation of, and increase in, corruption, death and rebellion. Romans 8 refutes your theory. Amil conforms to repeated Scripture that confirms the earth will be banished forever of all corruption, death and rebellion when Jesus comes.


We also agree that Jesus will abolish all sin and disease and warfare, as he is the One who rules with the Iron Rod, as per Psalms!


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> David I know posts are being thrown your way, and this will be my last one. I don't want you to feel attacked by me, but just wanted to say this last thing. When the Lord Jesus Christ comes it will be to put an end to all wickedness and to judge the living and the dead. He is not coming to an interim something where there are still plottings and evil. That would be so beneath his dignity. No evil can stand before the fire of his coming. He will bring all hidden things to light and destroy death forever. I understand your position because I held to it also. Read the Scripture I posted and ask yourself, how is this not describing a complete work by Christ when he comes, the end of all suffering and death and evil.


I agree with you, as do all premils, that when Jesus sets up His Kingdom reign here on earth, indeed all that comes as a result of the cursed creation will be undone, and all nations and people shall worship Him only as Lord, and His morality shall be established over the entire earth. We just see the eternal State as being seperate and distinct event, right after the GWT.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Read 1 Corinthians 15:22-24: *“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming*. *Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power**.”
> *
> Where possibly can you find your supposed future millennium here? It is watertight and allows no room for your doctrine. You have to force it into text after text that the Holy Spirit forgot to do. The reality is, it will never happen. Your battle is with the sacred text.


Depends on how you understand Chapter 20 of Revelation, First and Second Resurrection, Gwt, and how to understand Messianic Age.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Why would any Bible believing Christian advocate the restart of the pointless useless old covenant system when Christ superseded it with an effective, superior and final system - the new covenant?
> 
> Hebrews 10:12 says, *"this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” *
> 
> Hebrews 10:14 says, *“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” *
> 
> Hebrews 10:18 says, *"there is no more offering for sin."*
> 
> Hebrews 10:26 says, *"there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." *


No Premil believer though is saying that God reinstitutes the OT system, as its just memorial in nature!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Where does Ezekiel (or any other Bible writer) say the sacrifices are memorial? Where does he say they pertain to an age after the second coming? Where does he mention a supposed future millennium?


Mentioned in Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 2 and 65.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Reinstating a sacrificial system is blasphemous in my estimation since the Lord instituted the Lord's supper as a memorial. You haven't addressed that David. You are not interacting with the four questions either. You are obfuscating and not answering.

Reactions: Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> We also agree that Jesus will abolish all sin and disease and warfare, as he is the One who rules with the Iron Rod, as per Psalms!




Wherever you have sinners you have corruption. Death is the result of sin. Your millennium is saturated in an army of wicked Satanists - as the sand of the sea. You cannot get around that. So your millennium is not how you have been taught. If the curse was lifted then it would be life the Amil and Postmil new earth - perfect!


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Depends on how you understand Chapter 20 of Revelation, First and Second Resurrection, Gwt, and how to understand Messianic Age.



Where is a millennium mentioned in 1 Cor 15?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Mentioned in Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 2 and 65.



Please quote the text that shows such. You know it is not there. So, you have nothing in the OT. What about the NT?

*Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.
*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Mentioned in Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 2 and 65.


Quit doing this David. Give us specific passages, the historical context, and your interpretation along with the application. Learn to interact or you will be shut down. You have been overly warned for years now.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> "It isn't just the date setting mindset. It is the wasted time of making and encouraged studying of charts *based upon the assumptions and interpretations of the book of Revelation based upon pour genre misapplication and poor hermeneutics as well as misapplied passages..."*



This is so vague it could apply to anyone (including people who post on nothing but eschatology).


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Mentioned in Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 2 and 65.



If you would actually objectively examine Isaiah 2 and 65 you would see that one relates expressly to "the last days" and the other relates to "the new heavens and new earth." Due to the scriptural silence on a future millennium, Premillennialists have to dump texts that have absolutely nothing to do with such a suppose future millennium. No text is safe under Premil hermeneutics.

Isaiah 65:17-19 says, *“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."*

Can I remind you that the new heavens and the new earth come are not the millennium, but they come after the millennium?

Look at Revelation 21:1-4: *“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”*

Revelation 22:3 tells us that there is coming a day where *“there shall be no more curse.” *


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> No, I am not.


Yes you are and you are worthless in this conversation as far as I can see it. You have just made 4 posts at least on this. You just went in a big circle. We were speaking about specific things. You are not worth answering here in my estimation. I love you but you are more confusing than light bearing in this conversation. I have pointed to specific things that are pointed and defined by easier passages. I have made accusations against the premil interpretation. I have mentioned how it steals time away and leads others into a misguided study with no application and a possible set up for a false belief in a future Utopia of a false Messiah monarch. *The Sacrificial System reinstituted is blasphemous*. *Christology is defiled by this system as it pertains to the Kingdom of God and Christ as Messiah the Prince our Mediator*. There are all kinds of things wrong with this.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Reinstating a sacrificial system is blasphemous in my estimation since the Lord instituted the Lord's supper as a memorial. You haven't addressed that David. You are not interacting with the four questions either. You are obfuscating and not answering.


You keep seeing it as being the OT system reinstituted, which we premils do not.... I have listed Isaiah, and Psalms, so why not have some interact with me on how and why A Mils do not see a literal Kingdom Age on earth being described?e Also have given links to where others can describe the premil viewpoint better than myself.
Men such as Charles Spurgeon and Dr Boice held to same views as mine in this, were they all wrong?


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Please quote the text that shows such. You know it is not there. So, you have nothing in the OT. What about the NT?
> 
> *Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?
> 
> Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?
> 
> Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?
> 
> Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.*


NO premil mil states and holds that the OT sacrifices are being redone for the same purpose as under the OT economy, so that is a straw man!


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Where is a millennium mentioned in 1 Cor 15?


The Messianic Age as being rule of messiah on Earth is found in Zechariah and Isaiah especially, and also in Revelation 20.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes you are and you are worthless in this conversation as far as I can see it. You have just made 4 posts at least on this. You just went in a big circle. We were speaking about specific things. You are not worth answering here in my estimation. I love you but you are more confusing than light bearing in this conversation. I have pointed to specific things that are pointed and defined by easier passages. I have made accusations against the premil interpretation. I have mentioned how it steals time away and leads others into a misguided study with no application and a possible set up for a false belief in a future Utopia of a false Messiah monarch. *The Sacrificial System reinstituted is blasphemous*. *Christology is defiled by this system as it pertains to the Kingdom of God and Christ as Messiah the Prince our Mediator*. There are all kinds of things wrong with this.


Why are you allowed others here to blast away at a premil understanding, and not show to us grace to believe as we do, and not allow one to question seriously problems within A Mil viewpoint? Do you hold that no Calvinist or Reformed believer can hold to Premil then?


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Men such as Charles Spurgeon and Dr Boice held to same views as mine in this, were they all wrong?



Please don't speak on their behalf. When did ever they promote future sin offerings, like you?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> NO premil mil states and holds that the OT sacrifices are being redone for the same purpose as under the OT economy, so that is a straw man!





Dachaser said:


> You keep seeing it as being the OT system reinstituted, which we premils do not.... I have listed Isaiah, and Psalms, so why not have some interact with me on how and why A Mils do not see a literal Kingdom Age on earth being described?e Also have given links to where others can describe the premil viewpoint better than myself.



Really? Do you believe the following sacrifices will be reintroduced in your future millennium or do you _spiritualise_ them?

*The meat offering* – Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20.

*The sin offering* – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20.

*The trespass offering* – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20.

*The burnt offerings* – Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15.

*The peace offerings* – Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12.

*The drink offerings* – Ezekiel 45:17.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> If you would actually objectively examine Isaiah 2 and 65 you would see that one relates expressly to "the last days" and the other relates to "the new heavens and new earth." Due to the scriptural silence on a future millennium, Premillennialists have to dump texts that have absolutely nothing to do with such a suppose future millennium. No text is safe under Premil hermeneutics.
> 
> Isaiah 65:17-19 says, *“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."*
> 
> Can I remind you that the new heavens and the the new earth come are not the millennium, but they come after the millennium?
> 
> Look at Revelation 21:1-4: *“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”*
> 
> Revelation 22:3 tells us that there is coming a day where *“there shall be no more curse.” *


Isaiah 2 talks about the future Day, when the nations shall obey the God of Israel, and that all worship shall be unto Him, when has that happened?
It seems to describe a literal future time yet to happen, and those descriptions would seem to indicate aspects pf Messiah that did not happen at first coming, so must be part of the second coming.
Revelation 19-20 ties into second coming and millennium, while 21 describes the eternal state afterwards.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Why are you allowed others here to blast away at a premil understanding, and not show to us grace to believe as we do, and not allow one to question seriously problems within A Mil viewpoint? Do you hold that no Calvinist or Reformed believer can hold to Premil then?



He did not attack your right to advance Premil, it is your constant avoidance that he challenged.


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> Stop speaking on their behalf. When did they promote future sin offerings?


Neither dod, nor do I, or any any other Premil I have ever read!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> You keep seeing it as being the OT system reinstituted, which we premils do not....


You said the sacrifices were going to be reinstated as a memorial. We are allowing you to define this. You have only one more chance before I close you out here David. You refuse to interact with the four questions. We have specifically asked you to give us specific passages and asked you to explain them. You are not doing that. You made the claim. We are only reacting to your claim. I am not saying the OT system is reinstituted. You are stating the sacrifices are going to start up again as a memorial. I am claiming that to be blasphemous. We are not misunderstanding you. 


Dachaser said:


> I have listed Isaiah, and Psalms, so why not have some interact with me on how and why A Mils do not see a literal Kingdom Age on earth being described?


You have not given us specific passages to deal with and why YOU believe they are to be interpreted or exegeted as you understand them. Do it. 


Dachaser said:


> Also have given links to where others can describe the premil viewpoint better than myself.


Well then, quote them. Let us know why you believe them to be correct. That is called interaction. That is called sharing why you believe what you believe. I can say I agree with So and So but that doesn't explain anything. Do you see what I am saying? There is no defense or doctrinal proof or testing the way you are doing this. Anyone can post a link and say I believe this. Tell us why you do. 


Dachaser said:


> Men such as Charles Spurgeon and Dr Boice held to same views as mine in this, were they all wrong?


Yes, I do believe they are wrong. Dr. Boice really is out of bounds confessionally here also in my estimation. It is a rare thing for a Confessional Presbyterian to hold to the views he held here. As for Spurgeon, I really can't answer for him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

sovereigngrace said:


> He did not attack your right to advance Premil, it is your constant avoidance that he challenged.


I am under the impression that no matter which preMil authority would be cited, would just be not received as having any valid biblical points.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You said the sacrifices were going to be reinstated as a memorial. We are allowing you to define this. You have only one more chance before I close you out here David. You refuse to interact with the four questions. We have specifically asked you to give us specific passages and asked you to explain them. You are not doing that. You made the claim. We are only reacting to your claim. I am not saying the OT system is reinstituted. You are stating the sacrifices are going to start up again as a memorial. I am claiming that to be blasphemous. We are not misunderstanding you.
> 
> You have not given us specific passages to deal with and why YOU believe they are to be interpreted or exegeted as you understand them. Do it.
> 
> Well then, quote them. Let us know why you believe them to be correct. That is called interaction. That is called sharing why you believe what you believe. I can say I agree with So and So but that doesn't explain anything. Do you see what I am saying? There is no defense or doctrinal proof or testing the way you are doing this. Anyone can post a link and say I believe this. Tell us why you do.
> 
> Yes, I do believe they are wrong. Dr. Boice really is out of bounds confessionally here also in my estimation. It is a rare thing for a Confessional Presbyterian to hold to the views he held here. As for Spurgeon, I really can't answer for him.


I am really not trying to seem stubborn on this discussion, but you really seem to not see any form of Premil as being allowed per the scriptures, and so many reformed Baptists would be accused of holding to aberrant ttheology, which to me is really not being Christ like .


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Why are you allowed others here to blast away at a premil understanding, and not show to us grace to believe as we do, and not allow one to question seriously problems within A Mil viewpoint? Do you hold that no Calvinist or Reformed believer can hold to Premil then?


You don't get to answer for Jacob David. I do believe a Calvinist can be Premil. Duh. John MacArthur is a progressive dispensationalist Premillennialist. You keep making the most outrageous statements and claiming things I have never said. Stop it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You don't get to answer for Jacob David. I do believe a Calvinist can be Premil. Duh. John MacArthur is a progressive dispensationalist Premillennialist. You keep making the most outrageous statements and claiming things I have never said. Stop it.


What did you mean about DR Boice quote in post 340 then, as I do not want to misunderstand you here, or to put words in your mouth either!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> I am really not trying to seem stubborn on this discussion, but you really seem to not see any form of Premil as being allowed per the scriptures, and so many reformed Baptists would be accused of holding to aberrant ttheology, which to me is really not b eing Christ like .


Yes, I do believe it is an aberrant theology. That doesn't mean I hate anyone. Come on. You just aren't communicating or interacting.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes, I do believe it is an aberrant theology. That doesn't mean I hate anyone. Come on. You just aren't communicating or interacting.


Even though premil has been held as being a valid understanding of Eschatology for past 2000 years, hels by some of the most prominent Christians?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

David,

As you were probably asking a question while I was posting I am restating the my prior post. And Chiliasm is not the same as the Premillennialism of today.

David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.

How many pages have I been asking you to interact with the four questions? You are done next post if you don't.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Dachaser said:


> Isaiah 2 talks about the future Day, when the nations shall obey the God of Israel, and that all worship shall be unto Him, when has that happened?
> It seems to describe a literal future time yet to happen, and those descriptions would seem to indicate aspects pf Messiah that did not happen at first coming, so must be part of the second coming.
> Revelation 19-20 ties into second coming and millennium, while 21 describes the eternal state afterwards.



Isaiah 2:2-4 relates to the one-and-only "last days" - the here-and-now. Many Scriptures support the fact we are in the last days. It testifies, *“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."*

Can I remind you that the "last days" (plural) comes before Christ's return, not after (Acts 2:16-21, 1 Corinthians 10:11, 1 Timothy 3:1, Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26, I John 2:18, James 5:1-3, 1 Peter 1:18-20 and 2 Peter 3:3)? The "last day" (singular) occurs at Christ's climactic coming (John 11:23-24 6:39, 6:44, John 6:54, 12:48, 2 Timothy 4:8). Where is the millennium described as "the last days" or "the new heavens and new earth" in Revelation 20?

Isaiah 2:2-4 is telling us that Messiah would come and bring peace to His subjects. This would be performed through the Word of God going out of Zion to all nations in these last days. Christ did this. The Gentiles are now coming to the truth of God by their millions. Isaiah receives a pictorial vision of the approaching new covenant order, and the last days. It is given in a metaphorical style describing the incredible peace and reconciliation that comes through the success of the Gospel. The mountain of the Lord refers to the kingdom introduced by Christ. There is no more war there. Mountains in Scripture prophetically speak of kingdoms. That is the case in Isaiah 2 and Malachi 4. The peace described came with the earthly ministry of Christ. It is spiritual. It pertains to the kingdom of God. It also relates to the last days – the days we are living in.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.


I do not desire to have any other person here become angry at me, or get me into not reacting as a Christ follower, so will be taking myself off this topic for now, as do not desire to see this get more agitated or heat up any more than it appears to have gotten!


----------



## sovereigngrace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David,
> 
> As you were probably asking a question while I was posting I am restating the my prior post. And Chiliasm is not the same as the Premillennialism of today.
> 
> David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.
> 
> How many pages have I been asking you to interact with the four questions? You are done next post if you don't.




The main problem is: no Premil could ever prove any text to support future sin offerings. The New Testament strongly forbids it. What is more, there is no the slightest support for this theory in Revelation 20. Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as* “that which is done away”* (2 Corinthians 3:11) and* “that which is abolished” *(2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear:* “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ”* (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: *“He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”*

The only provision for our sins, is the sacrifice of Calvary. The sad thing is: many Christians today speak on this subject as if the cross never happened. They talk as if the old covenant is still germane today or will be in the future. They fail to see that it has been eternally removed because the new covenant has wholly replaced it. This is why they get messed up when they get to this overall subject.

The old covenant was only a signpost to the new covenant – the substance, the fulfilment and the reality. Hebrews 10:1 makes it perfectly clear, *“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”*

Contrary to what nearly all Premillennialists believe, the ceremonial law is never depicted in Scripture as looking back but always forward. Please see “the law” was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’. It is never represented as being useful after the cross. It was the “shadow” that pointed onward towards the coming Messiah. The sacrifices offered under the old covenant were never intended to be permanent, but transitory. The symbol, picture and figure in the Old Testament always predates, and points forward towards, the reality, substance, image and realization in Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> I will try to give my answers here, but just curious, as to why Premils like myself seem to always get shouted down here, as when we give what we believe scriptures are teaching get put down?



David,

You were not being shouted down. You refused for 5 pages of interaction to answer the four questions above. I was directing you to have some honest integrity and to faithfully interact with the four questions you were given. Those four questions were repeated many times. You said the animal sacrifices were going to be reinstituted in the future as a memorial of Christ in your Premillennial view. You finally said you would comply on page 10. Then you refused to do that and started accusing the board of shouting down the Premil position. All you were required to do was to give specific scripture references with your understanding. I know you are capable of doing that. I also know you understood you were being required to give a defence of your position. You chose not to do that by obfuscation (redirecting the conversation away from the topic you chose to advocate but did not choose to defend). That sounds like you were just throwing out propaganda in sound bites without proving the facts. I know you don't want to do that. Please learn how to interact in a faithful honest manner brother. I am going to give you a week to work on your answers for the four questions and then you can post them if you desire. 

Here they are again. 

@ Dachaser
1)Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

2)Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

3)Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

4)Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## sovereigngrace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David,
> 
> You were not being shouted down. You refused for 5 pages of interaction to answer the four questions above. I was directing you to have some honest integrity and to faithfully interact with the four questions you were given. Those four questions were repeated many times. You said the animal sacrifices were going to be reinstituted in the future as a memorial of Christ in your Premillennial view. You finally said you would comply on page 10. Then you refused to do that and started accusing the board of shouting down the Premil position. All you were required to do was to give specific scripture references with your understanding. I know you are capable of doing that. I also know you understood you were being required to give a defence of your position. You chose not to do that by obfuscation (redirecting the conversation away from the topic you chose to advocate but did not choose to defend). That sounds like you were just throwing out propaganda in sound bites without proving the facts. I know you don't want to do that. Please learn how to interact in a faithful honest manner brother. I am going to give you a week to work on your answers for the four questions and then you can post them if you desire.
> 
> Here they are again.
> 
> @ Dachaser
> 1)Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?
> 
> 2)Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?
> 
> 3)Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?
> 
> 4)Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.



The reason why Premillennialists duck and dive around presenting evidence to support the theory of future millennial memorial animal sacrifices on the new earth is because:

Revelation 20 makes no mention of it.
Multiple New Testament Scriptures expressly forbid them.
The Scripture texts they present in support make absolutely no mention of any sort of “memorial” animal sacrifices. This is a Premillennialist invention.
The Scriptures that they present in support all belong to the old covenant, and have long past their expiration date. None belong to the new covenant, or the hereafter.
Premillennialists know in their heart-of-hearts that the cross was the final sacrifice for sin.


----------

