The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.
- Thread starter ewq1938
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Earburner
Well-Known Member
The PARABLE of Luke 16:26 applies here.
Luke.16[26] And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Matt.13[13] Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (Mat. 13:13-23).
1Cor.2[14] But the natural man [our fleshly mind] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Cor.2[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
And so, that brings you back to Isaiah 55:8-9, Zechariah 4:6 and John 16:13.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Accusing others is about all you can see. Years of practice can do that to a person.
- Jul 11, 2015
- 5,954
- 1,227
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
29. The Millennial Kingdom/Kingdom of God established at the cross?
Amillennialism believes the Millennium began at the cross (or the Ascension) but Christ said it was related to his second coming through a parable he spoke:
Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
They made the same mistaken assumption that Amillennialism does.
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
This man did not receive the kingdom until AFTER he returned. Clearly the Kingdom/Millennium does not begin until the return of Christ. This is exactly what is found in Revelation 2:25-26, Revelation 11, 19 and 20.
Amillennialism believes the Millennium began at the cross (or the Ascension) but Christ said it was related to his second coming through a parable he spoke:
Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
They made the same mistaken assumption that Amillennialism does.
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
This man did not receive the kingdom until AFTER he returned. Clearly the Kingdom/Millennium does not begin until the return of Christ. This is exactly what is found in Revelation 2:25-26, Revelation 11, 19 and 20.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL! How do you come up with this nonsense? You make up your own rules that no one else goes by. Tell me exactly how a SYMBOLIC sword causes "the same physical damage a real sword does"? That makes no sense whatsoever. You're not even thinking here. If something is described SYMBOLICALLY then that doesn't mean it has to resemble what it represents in reality. For example, Satan is described as a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. Is that what he is or what he looks like in reality? Of course not. But, using your ridiculous logic regarding SYMBOLIC text, he would literally look like a dragon with seven heads and ten horns.
Let me illustrate how ridiculous your understanding of the SYMBOLIC sword really is. I assume that you know that the sword of the Spirit is not a literal sword and is instead symbolic and symbolically represents the word of God (Ephesians 6:17), right? So, let's say the sword coming out of Christ's mouth, which you acknowledge is symbolic rather than literal, also symbolically represents the word of God (which it likely does). So, tell me exactly how the word of God results in the same physical damage a real sword does? It clearly doesn't. It would be ridiculous to think so.
The literal destruction that will come down when Christ returns will be as a result of the rejection of the word of God and that is what is symbolized in Revelation 19. The way the destruction will occur literally is NOT described in Revelation 19. It's only described symbolically. So, we have to look at other non-symbolic text to see how it will happen literally. And we can look at passages like 2 Peter 3:10-12 to find that out. It will happen literally by fire. Very simple. You are failing to see something that should be obvious just because of your doctrinal bias. It leads you to claim utterly ridiculous things like saying that a SYMBOLIC sword results in the same physical damage as a real sword. Which would mean all the people destroyed at His coming would have puncture wounds from being somehow stabbed with a SYMBOLIC sword, which is utterly ludicrous.
You are an expert at that.
That's what you conclude when you're not able to differentiate between symbolic and literal text. Armageddon isn't a physical place in the book of Revelation any more than Babylon or Magog are.
You are embarrassing yourself by not being able to tell the difference between symbolic and literal text. It doesn't get any more embarrassing than to claim that a symbolic sword and literal sword are basically the same thing.
Too late. You already did that to yourself before you ever talked to me.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I ask for scripture that backs up your claim and this is all you can respond with. That says it all about your doctrine.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You're apparently not even trying to get my point. What I'm saying is that the text never indicates that he would be bound from persecuting anyone. You were trying to use text that describes him persecuting people as evidence that he can't be bound during that time, but my point is that it never says he would be bound from persecuting anyone. So, that particular argument isn't valid.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You're not interpreting that parable correctly. It actually supports Amillennialism. Look at verse 12 more carefully. It says "a certain nobleman", which represents Jesus, "went into a far country", which represents heaven, "to receive for himself a kingdom". That means He received the kingdom in heaven. But, you're saying He doesn't receive the kingdom until after He returns from heaven, which completely contradicts what it indicates in Luke 19:12. Why are you twisting the parable so badly? Doctrinal bias. No other reason.
That He went to heaven to become King of His kingdom lines up with what it teaches in scripture about what happened after His resurrection and when He ascended to heaven.
Ephesians 1:19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
This passage indicates that upon His resurrection and ascension Jesus was placed in a position "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked...in the present age" and that God "placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church". This shows that He was made King and received His kingdom long ago upon His resurrection and ascension to heaven! The parable does NOT say otherwise. You are reading things into the parable which aren't there. It clearly says that the nobleman went to a far country to be made King over His kingdom, not that He would not receive His kingdom until He returned.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
So, is your answer to my question yes, you do believe in a future judgment day? Do you believe that everyone will be judged when Christ returns at the end of the age, as is portrayed in passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46? When I say "judged", I'm not talking about fates being determined at that time (as you indicated, the fates of unbelievers is already sealed), I'm talking about eternal sentences or rewards being given out to both believers and unbelievers at that time.
You're not recognizing that John 5:24-25 has a completely different context than John 5:28-29. For one thing, John 5:24-25 only relates to believers and not unbelievers while John 5:28-29 relates to both.
Also, John 5:24-25 has to do with going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ (just like Paul wrote about in Ephesians 2:1-6) while John 5:28-29 clearly has to do with bodily resurrection since it's talking about all of those in the graves being resurrected unto one of two different judgments (eternal life or condemnation). Matthew 27:52-53 has absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about in John 5:28-29. We know that the dead in Christ will be resurrected and receive bodily immortality at His return, so the timing of John 5:28-29 has to relate to His return and not to His death and resurrection.
That doesn't matter. Other verses, like John 5:28-29, do say something about a general resurrection of all the dead. And none of the verses you referenced indicate that there won't be a general resurrection of all the dead. It just so happens that those verses focus on what will happen to believers without saying anything one way or another about unbelievers (except for Revelation 20:5).
How exactly can a dead person stand before God? It's no wonder that you try to deny that Revelation 20:5a is legitimate because that text indicates that the dead referenced in Revelation 20:11-15 will be resurrected first before being judged even if that isn't specified in Revelation 20:11-15 itself.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That's rich coming from you, the one who butchered the parable in Luke 19:11-26 to make it say that Jesus receives His kingdom when He returns even though Luke 19:12 clearly indicates that the nobleman, representing Jesus, went to a far country, representing heaven, to receive His kingdom. Which is exactly what happened when He was raised to the right hand of the Father after His resurrection and at His ascension (Ephesians 1:18-23).
- Jul 11, 2015
- 5,954
- 1,227
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
What I meant was the place he left was not his kingdom until he returned from his other kingdom. Amillennialism teaches that Earth is his kingdom now but that goes against what the parable tells us. Heaven is his only kingdom until he returns and the Earth becomes his kingdom, which is essentially what Revelation 11 tells us, happening at the 7th trump so this is pure Premillennialism.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Sorry, your accusing tone drowned out any other point you were trying to make. One can ask questions and carry on a polite conversation, but when one's hatred comes forth as just being a bully, one can safely say, that is about all they care to put forth. So just pointing out this one sided conversation is getting you no where.
If you don't want me to address the constant attacks, and get back to a solid topic, then just stick to the topic.
Was the outcome that they were all dead?
Was that figuratively dead or literally dead?
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
This is backwards. The first mention is the physical resurrection. The physical resurrection always comes first.
How is this a spiritual resurrection:
"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go."
How is this a spiritual resurrection:
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,"
According to you any physical resurrection is not available until the GWT event after current reality is no longer in existence.
Certainly Lazarus coming out of the grave was not the GWT. Certainly bodies coming out of their graves at the Cross was not the GWT.
These can be spiritual, even if the change was seemingly only physical.
Now verses 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; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Compared to the GWT:
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
We do see exactly what Jesus declared. One last time all the dead left their graves at one event. The assumption, all receive an immediate state of either life or damnation. Being still named in the Lamb's book of life would be the determination of the judgment. This is an applicable spiritual resurrection more than a physical one, because a physical body is never even mentioned, one time. In fact no one is even mentioned as given eternal life, but the option was there, because the Book of life was there. Only doctrinal bias would declare some here cannot still be named in the book. If their name is in the book, would they not be granted eternal life, as this is a resurrection by your own assertion. In fact the only resurrection there will ever be according to Amil. Certainly Amil have to admit many of these dead do indeed receive eternal life. Even though it is never stated. As a matter of fact, this would mean some here only know their spiritual condition after thousands of years in death. The NT clearly points out one can know their spiritual condition prior to physical death.
Now back to verse 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."
This can only be physical in your argument, as there is no reference to an eternal reward good or bad. It just means at any time one can physically live again. In fact some would even say physically die again.
Many claim Lazarus died again. Many claim those in Matthew 27 died again. In order for your point to stand, you have to change the result of what happens in your set of verses. You are applying a spiritual result to a physical resurrection, and a physical result to the spiritual resurrection with eternal consequences.
A point about Revelation 20:12-15:
These verses never state where the dead end up. It is an open ended point. There is no declaration, only assumption. Death and sheol were cast in. The only qualifier of being cast in is "not being named in the Lamb's book of life". It is an assumption that all were not found. It is an assumption that none could still be found. We are not told either way. Any one making a declaration of fact would only be asserting their opinion, or at least an educated guess. There is no declaration that all the dead here were cast into the LOF.
This is a spiritual determination. I accept the Lamb's book of life is literal and physical, but the dead is a figurative and spiritual application of reality. One cannot be dead and alive at the same time in this judgment. Yes the dead change location to a point outside of reality. That does not necessarily assume a physical state. Also there is nothing about the dead in heaven being emptied out either. Where do you place those dead in these verses?
I am not against a physical state. Your point being made, declares one set of verses as only being physical and not spiritual. While the other one is spiritual and cannot be physical. It is your own unrealistic opinion. Personally they both are equally physical and spiritual, as Adam flesh is equally dead physically and spiritually. There is more than just one single resurrection mentioned throughout Scripture which is hard to deny, but Amil keep insisting otherwise.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I frequently back up my views with scripture. You back up yours with nonsense. If you want to call me a bully for pointing that out, so be it. Maybe you should stop posting nonsense for once and make a coherent argument instead.
Literally, physically dead. But, that isn't the issue at hand. Why do you have such a hard time seeing the points that are being made? The point doesn't have to do with whether it's talking about people literally, physically dying or not. The point has to do with how exactly are they being physically killed? Can a symbolic sword be used in a literal way to kill people? Of course not. Otherwise, it would not be a symbolic sword. So, the literal way in which they will all be killed is by fire, as shown in 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 20:9.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. You have no spiritual discernment whatsoever. John 5:24-25 talked about a current and ongoing reality (the time is coming AND NOW IS). That has nothing to do with physical resurrection. The bodily resurrection of the dead unto bodily immortality will occur at Christ's return at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:22-23;50-54; 1 Thess 4:14-17). John 5:24-25 is talking about the reality of going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ just like Paul wrote about in Ephesians 2:1-6.
I didn't say that was a spiritual resurrection. Stop wasting time making straw man arguments.
I didn't say that was a spiritual resurrection. Stop wasting time making straw man arguments.
No, my claim is that there is no bodily resurrection unto immortality (an immortal body), except Christ's until His coming, which is exactly what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23.
They were not resurrected with immortal bodies. If they were then Paul would have included them somewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 when he talked about the order of bodily resurrections unto immortality, but he didn't.
It's too bad that you need everything to be spelled out to you in order to understand it. Jesus was very clear that the unsaved dead will be resurrected before being condemned, so it doesn't matter if that's spelled out in Revelation 20:11-15. You know it's true from other scripture. Not all scripture about judgment day contains all of the details about it. Why can't you understand such a simple concept as that?
I'm not saying that's physical, I'm saying it's spiritual. I believe John 5:24-25 is talking about the same thing that Paul wrote about here:
Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
Do you think Paul was talking about going from being spiritually dead in transgressions and sins to spiritually alive in Christ or do you think he was talking about a physical, bodily resurrection here?
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
There's no basis for thinking He has or will ever have more than one kingdom. That's nonsense. When He returns at the end of the age He will deliver His kingdom to the Father as indicated in Matthew 13:36-43 and as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24.
He will have delivered the kingdom to the Father at that point. Read Revelation 11:15 carefully. It's talking about the kingdom of the world becoming the kingdom of the Father and of His Son. You act like it only says it becomes the kingdom of the Son.
- Jul 11, 2015
- 5,954
- 1,227
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No, it's scriptural:
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Kingdoms plural become his. He now has a heavenly kingdom, and he will have multiple Earthly kingdoms when he returns.
There is no return in that passage because the return happened long before the events described.
It says "kingdoms" not "kingdom".
No, I don't. This is a strawman fallacy. Whatever belongs to the son also belongs to his father. Everyone knows that.
Only the King James Version (and maybe one or two other more obscure versions) quotes it this way, and it only looks plural on first glance. All the kingdoms of the world, the "realms" of earthly kings, are lumped together as one, and have all, collectively, become Christ's. The antiquated language of the New King James muddies this a bit, but it is what it is. Revelation 11:15 in the English Standard Version (ESV) is (or is very close to, in other other versions) as follows:
"Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.'"
'Kingdom' is singular in both occurrences in verse 15. These versions are not "different" than the KJV, just clearer.
Well, just before. Upon, really, just as was said. Surely not "long before."
Grace and peace to you.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
No you are just trying to force an issue. Fire happens at the Second Coming, the 6th Seal.
"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;"
This is an indication of fire. No sword mentioned here.
"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
No sword mentioned here.
Revelation 20 is fire, but no mention of Jesus coming down.
Your loose association of unrelated scenarios would not hold up in a trial as evidence. You cannot even use the context. The context itself would destroy your assumptions. You are trying to force the text of 2 Peter 3 into 3 totally different contexts, and then pretend there is no context at all. 2 Peter 3 will only work in one of those contexts.
When you can honestly point out the context, only then will you be true to the Scripture instead of just making stuff up.
Those people at Armageddon were already spiritually dead. They had the mark of the beast. They were physically dead, because the birds were eating their rotting corps.
"And the remnant 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."
Were those figurative fowls? Were they still dead, or not?
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Putting on immortality is putting on a body?
Is the robe of white a physical body?
Revelation 6:12
"And white robes were given unto every one of them"
Are you saying that Lazarus came out of the tomb with a spiritual resurrection? He was not literally there physically? That was the hour of resurrection that was then. Lazarus came out of the tomb proving the hour was come when Jesus called the dead out of their graves. Abraham's bosom was emptied at the Cross, proving Jesus called them out of their graves. That was physical.
Immortality is not physical. It is putting on the spirit, not putting on a physical body.
Lazarus was not given a robe of white. Lazarus was not fully restored as a son of God, soul, body, and spirit. Those OT souls at the Cross were given physical bodies, not immortality, the return of the spirit.
Being born of the Spirit into God's family is not getting a new body and the return of our spirit, to become as God. We are still in Adam's flesh and still not independent with our own spirit. We have to submit to The Holy Spirit. Yes our soul is quickened. We are still a work in progress.
"For this corruptible must put on incorruption (physical), and this mortal must put on immortality (spiritual).
The Greek word here has the same form as amil. "A" "death" meaning death is not. Just like Amil means Millennium is not. It is not about a body physical or spiritual. It is the lack of death. When Adam died that day it was both a physical and spiritual separation from God. Adam was no longer a son of God.
Paul tried to avoid the very meaning that you all are using by stating the soul puts on two different abilities. Putting something on is not the same as becoming something. Paul is not declaring a change. Paul is declaring the end of death itself. The soul puts on a physical likeness without death. The soul puts on a spiritual likeness without death. Missing the whole context, you all are going with a basic definition and taking Paul's words in the wrong direction.
At the rapture, Adam's dead flesh looses all that is about death. The physical is no longer dead. The spiritual is no longer dead. Or more succinctly the soul is no longer physically dead nor spiritually dead. The soul is given back the original son of God form. The soul puts on a permanent incorruptible physical body. The body puts on the spirit that Adam had before he died, the instant he disobeyed God.
You claim spiritual discernment, yet continue to use the basic pagan definition of an English word, instead of seeing what Paul was literally saying. It was not the fruit that killed Adam. It was the act of disobedience. We cannot restore ourselves into sons of God by claiming a belief system. Only at the Second Coming will God restore Adam's death.
Yet the Cross did provide a physical resurrection into an incorruptible physical body. That is the only way all of the OT could enter Paradise. Not as mere souls, or they would have already been there, and not in sheol in Abraham's bosom.
So John 5:24-25 can only be referring to the physical because Paradise was opened at the Cross. The spiritual in John 5:28-29 will not happen to those in the LOF. They are not restored as sons of God and then placed in the LOF are they? Is that what you believe?
Similar threads
