The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

The two verses that go before Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) support the idea of a spiritual kingdom. The two verses that follow Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) show the Lord giving a spiritual response to their question....
Christ’s response was that His kingdom was spiritual and not territorial. The focus was not going to be limited to Israel, but would expand to all nations. The disciples would thus, after a short season of tarrying in Jerusalem and an indispensable empowerment from on high, be living “witnesses” of the kingdom of God not only in their own natural land as they had wondered but throughout all the world. This is indeed what happened! This indeed is what is happening right now. This is definitely not talking about some imaginary age sandwiched in-between the second coming of Christ and the new heavens and new earth.

Not buying it. Jesus was talking about the literal nation Israel. And instead of denying or correcting the basis of the question, he entered the fact that it would happen in God's own time--something we are not to be concerned with. Some things are indeed spiritual, such as the Holy Spirit, and the impact of God's Kingdom on us today. However, this does not displace physical realities, anymore than God being a spirit rendered Christ's resurrection "spiritual," and not physical.

This sort of dichotomy is more like dualistic religions, with the yin and the yang, or Zoroastrianism, or perhaps some form of Gnosticism. It makes the same kind of error as Docetism. If you think God had no interest in the physical world, or in families and nations, then why would God have created Israel to start with, leaving her to die a meaningless existence? But He didn't.

To spiritualize everything is the ultimate cop out, enabling you to fit anything you want into an empty space. But Jesus clearly entertained as legitimate the question as to when Israel's restoration would take place. He indicated, in his response, that it would take place in God's time--not ours.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where in Rom 11 did Paul teach "the ultimate restoration of Israel, a full political national salvation, replete with spiritual renewal. The majority of Israel will become Christians, and the glorified Church in heaven will safeguard Christianity on the earth for a thousand years"?

It is time for you to produce. You have provided nothing so far!!! Basically, cough up or shut up!

That's pure bile. You've had the truth delivered to you for your honest consideration, and you continue to spit it out.

Rom 11 in its entirety explains that Israel, while presently under national judgment, still has hope. There is a Christian remnant carrying that hope until Christ comes to deliver some to build a new nation.

That kind of political salvation is what the Prophets spoke of and what Paul speaks of when he says, "all Israel will be saved." This isn't just the salvation of a neighborhood, a county, or even half the country. No, this is the salvation of the whole of national Israel, encompassing all of her land.

If you don't see that as Israel's salvation, it's because you don't connect it to the Prophets and to the Abrahamic Covenant, where God promised Israel final deliverance from her enemies.

If you can't see the argument here, you won't see it anywhere in the Scriptures. I'd be wasting my time.

But know this that Eze 36 established a principle by which God reaches out to an undeserving, naïve people to save them from their enemies. This is the principle of grace, through which we are all saved.

When Christ comes back, he will deliver Israel from her enemies, and at the same time bring the survivors back to himself. And he will cleanse them spiritually, according to Zech 12-13.

 

[WPM]

That's pure bile. You've had the truth delivered to you for your honest consideration, and you continue to spit it out.

You have a lovely way with words. Obviously you are very frustrated due to your failure to furnish us with any evidence here, but there is not need for the vicious rhetoric.

Rom 11 in its entirety explains that Israel, while presently under national judgment, still has hope. There is a Christian remnant carrying that hope until Christ comes to deliver some to build a new nation.

That kind of political salvation is what the Prophets spoke of and what Paul speaks of when he says, "all Israel will be saved." This isn't just the salvation of a neighborhood, a county, or even half the country. No, this is the salvation of the whole of national Israel, encompassing all of her land.

If you don't see that as Israel's salvation, it's because you don't connect it to the Prophets and to the Abrahamic Covenant, where God promised Israel final deliverance from her enemies.

If you can't see the argument here, you won't see it anywhere in the Scriptures. I'd be wasting my time.

But know this that Eze 36 established a principle by which God reaches out to an undeserving, naïve people to save them from their enemies. This is the principle of grace, through which we are all saved.

When Christ comes back, he will deliver Israel from her enemies, and at the same time bring the survivors back to himself. And he will cleanse them spiritually, according to Zech 12-13.

This is all spiritual! The physical political focus you place on ethnic Israel is wrong. Christ highlighted that the cities of Israel, who heard the Gospel and rejected the same, were under greater damnation than those cities who had never heard the truth. In fact, He said that they were in a worse place than Sodom and Gomorrah. He rebuked them in Matthew 10:15: “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” This was a damning indictment upon the religious Jews of Christ’s day.

This whole sea-change can be observed at the time when the woman of Samaria declared 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.”

Christ revealingly responded, “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.”

Here we see the movement away from a central geographical worship (and location), to the nations of the earth. This change came with the earthly ministry of Christ and the willful rejection of Him by the Jews. The theocratic nation was removed and replaced by a spiritual nation throughout all nations. Today we have no need to look for a brick temple in Jerusalem because we have entered into a spiritual edifice found throughout the world. God’s chosen people are “they that worship him [God] ... in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). God’s people are a spiritual people who are spiritually circumcised.

The new structure our Lord spoke of here was a spiritual house and relates to Himself and the building of His spiritual body – the Church. Any Jew interpreting these words in a literal sense would have mistakenly assumed that the hope for the nations in the last days would arise in the form of the physical provisional earthly temple in Jerusalem rather than a new spiritual temple throughout the world.

Dispensationalists seem to deliberately muddy the waters and misrepresent the general Reformed position on true Israel by arguing that their opponents believe that “Israel has no further place in the kingdom” or that “Israel has forfeited the promises of God.” That is not true! Dispensationalists miss, or choose to overlook, the fact that those who believe God has only ever had one people hold that true Israel (the believing remnant) entered fully into the covenant promises relating to Israel by accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. Jews and Gentiles therefore inherit the promises together. Believing Jews are now co-heirs with believing Gentiles in spiritual Israel. In Christ, who is true Israel, we all now partake of the same eternal promises. Saved Jews and Gentiles are all part of the same body of Christ. No one has replaced anyone.

Paul actually teaches on apostate Israel in Romans 11:23: “And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able [Gr. dunatos] to graft them in again.”

Paul presents a conditional promise here. He qualifies this important statement by saying “if.” This begs the question: “if” what? He then goes on to explain: “if they do not continue in unbelief.” Now, this is not a unique promise! It is a conditional promise that lies at the feet of every single nation throughout the world since the cross. But any restoration of Israel or any type of revival will only come through them becoming part of “true Israel” by faith in Christ the Messiah.

Israel is not prohibited from being integrated into the global body of Christ. They can be grafted into the good olive tree. The Gospel can once again be heard throughout the breath of this much-diminished country, but they must bow the knee to Jesus Christ in repentance when God speaks. No one can say with any credence that God is finished with Israel.

While there is a strong harmonious spiritual bond between the Old Testament believer and the New Testament believer, there is absolutely no continuity between national Israel and the New Testament Church today, just like there was no true correlation between apostate Israel and the faithful believing Israeli remnant in the Old Testament.

 

[WPM]

Not buying it. Jesus was talking about the literal nation Israel. And instead of denying or correcting the basis of the question, he entered the fact that it would happen in God's own time--something we are not to be concerned with. Some things are indeed spiritual, such as the Holy Spirit, and the impact of God's Kingdom on us today. However, this does not displace physical realities, anymore than God being a spirit rendered Christ's resurrection "spiritual," and not physical.

This sort of dichotomy is more like dualistic religions, with the yin and the yang, or Zoroastrianism, or perhaps some form of Gnosticism. It makes the same kind of error as Docetism. If you think God had no interest in the physical world, or in families and nations, then why would God have created Israel to start with, leaving her to die a meaningless existence? But He didn't.

To spiritualize everything is the ultimate cop out, enabling you to fit anything you want into an empty space. But Jesus clearly entertained as legitimate the question as to when Israel's restoration would take place. He indicated, in his response, that it would take place in God's time--not ours.

Not true - another deliberate and bitter misrepresentation of Amils. How about addressing what I wrote? You are obviously struggling to get any holes in my position. You did not address one single point I made. Your rebuttal simply hurls insults at Amils (something you do often) and misrepresent what they believe. Why? (1) Because you have no answer to it. It is right and accurate and forbids your teaching. (2) You seem to be in the gall of bitterness due to your whole thesis on the ECFs falling apart.

Premils habitually spiritualize what is literal and literalize what is spiritual. There is so much Scripture that forbids the Premil theory that Premil is forced to spiritualize away the clearest and most literal of Scripture. Ironically it liberalizes the one book that is the most symbolic in Scripture (Revelation). This alone is grounds to reject the doctrine.

From my experience, Premil is not governed by context or wording of the text of the narrative but by appalling partisan hermeneutics. It is what will allow Premil to fit. This is why Premil should be rejected. Anything that exposes the belief is rejected or spiritualized in order to fit Premil.

How possibly could the wicked survive the second coming and escape the universal conflagration and wholesale destruction? Premillennialists are forced to dilute the nature of the devastation, localize its extent to a particular region of the globe or spiritualize away the destruction of the wicked completely as a non-literal abstract allegory.

 

[WPM]

I don't have to prove that Chiliasm and Premil both believed in a literal Millennium. Peripheral facts, as I said, were peripheral and were *not* Amil.

views on peripheral matters such as the status of Israel and the mortality of the Millennial population are unimportant. Your thesis is based upon making these peripheral items of such great importance that ancient Chiliasm virtually becomes Amil!

Due to the overwhelming irrefutable evidence presented, you have finally (albeit reluctantly) confirmed my thesis: that early Chiliasm and modern Premil has only one tenet in common - the belief in a future thousand years. It doesn't seem to matter to you that Chiliasm anticipated a perfect and incorrupt earth, free of all the bondage of corruption, as Amils expect. It doesn't seem to matter to you that they taught that only the glorified redeemed are spiritually worthy to populate this approaching world, and suitably equipped in their perfected bodies to inherit it, as Amils expect. It doesn't seem to matter to you that early Chiliasts believed Satan was bound at the First Advent and will be destroyed at the second coming, as Amils do. It doesn't seem to matter to you that Chiliasm rejected the Premil paradigm, which promotes another “evil age” after this one filled with the ungodly, sin, death, corruption, Satan, deceit and rebellion, after “this age,” as Amils do. It doesn't seem to matter to you that they believed that the Church was true Israel today, as Amils do.

All the early Chiliasts and Amils for 210 years after the cross believed in a climactic return of Christ that saw the end of sin and sinners, crying and dying, disease and decay, Satan and his minions. Premils have no rebuttal to that because it is a fact.

After arguing the opposite for months, you have now conceded that all other issues apart from the belief in a future thousand years are “peripheral” and “unimportant.” This is a massive concession and a tremendous vindication of the Op.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have a lovely way with words. Obviously you are very frustrated due to your failure to furnish us with any evidence here, but there is not need for the vicious rhetoric.



This is all spiritual! The physical political focus you place on ethnic Israel is wrong. Christ highlighted that the cities of Israel, who heard the Gospel and rejected the same, were under greater damnation than those cities who had never heard the truth. In fact, He said that they were in a worse place than Sodom and Gomorrah. He rebuked them in Matthew 10:15: “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” This was a damning indictment upon the religious Jews of Christ’s day.

This whole sea-change can be observed at the time when the woman of Samaria declared 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.”

Christ revealingly responded, “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.”

Here we see the movement away from a central geographical worship (and location), to the nations of the earth. This change came with the earthly ministry of Christ and the willful rejection of Him by the Jews. The theocratic nation was removed and replaced by a spiritual nation throughout all nations. Today we have no need to look for a brick temple in Jerusalem because we have entered into a spiritual edifice found throughout the world. God’s chosen people are “they that worship him [God] ... in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). God’s people are a spiritual people who are spiritually circumcised.

The new structure our Lord spoke of here was a spiritual house and relates to Himself and the building of His spiritual body – the Church. Any Jew interpreting these words in a literal sense would have mistakenly assumed that the hope for the nations in the last days would arise in the form of the physical provisional earthly temple in Jerusalem rather than a new spiritual temple throughout the world.

Dispensationalists seem to deliberately muddy the waters and misrepresent the general Reformed position on true Israel by arguing that their opponents believe that “Israel has no further place in the kingdom” or that “Israel has forfeited the promises of God.” That is not true! Dispensationalists miss, or choose to overlook, the fact that those who believe God has only ever had one people hold that true Israel (the believing remnant) entered fully into the covenant promises relating to Israel by accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. Jews and Gentiles therefore inherit the promises together. Believing Jews are now co-heirs with believing Gentiles in spiritual Israel. In Christ, who is true Israel, we all now partake of the same eternal promises. Saved Jews and Gentiles are all part of the same body of Christ. No one has replaced anyone.

Paul actually teaches on apostate Israel in Romans 11:23: “And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able [Gr. dunatos] to graft them in again.”

Paul presents a conditional promise here. He qualifies this important statement by saying “if.” This begs the question: “if” what? He then goes on to explain: “if they do not continue in unbelief.” Now, this is not a unique promise! It is a conditional promise that lies at the feet of every single nation throughout the world since the cross. But any restoration of Israel or any type of revival will only come through them becoming part of “true Israel” by faith in Christ the Messiah.

Israel is not prohibited from being integrated into the global body of Christ. They can be grafted into the good olive tree. The Gospel can once again be heard throughout the breath of this much-diminished country, but they must bow the knee to Jesus Christ in repentance when God speaks. No one can say with any credence that God is finished with Israel.

While there is a strong harmonious spiritual bond between the Old Testament believer and the New Testament believer, there is absolutely no continuity between national Israel and the New Testament Church today, just like there was no true correlation between apostate Israel and the faithful believing Israeli remnant in the Old Testament.

This is an impasse because you hold to Amil, Replacement Theology, and a different view of Rom 11 than I do. I view Israel's final deliverance as *political,* accompanied by spiritual salvation, to ensure the continuity of this political salvation.

I do understand your pov, that Israel already entered into her inheritance when a remnant accepted Christ, and that Israel's future salvation is nothing more than a proposal for individuals to accept Christ. This is not, however, the picture I get of biblical prophecy concerning Israel's "final salvation," which is indeed political, being a deliverance from enemies following a long exile.

So we really have nothing more to argue about. You just won't accept what I see as a political salvation. You believe that everything went from a physical temple worship to a strictly spiritual worship without all of the physical paraphernalia. It's certainly true that the physical temple worship was replaced by our worship of Christ alone. But I don't believe this means that physical Israel is replaced by a smattering of international remnants and individuals who accept Christ.

The idea that entire nations can embrace Christian law is as old as Israel, and has never been revoked as God's desired system. In fact, the whole sense of God's Kingdom requires national submission to a national system. The fact that not every individual in a national system perfectly follows the laws and spirit of that system is of no consequence with respect to the important of a society that is required to submit to God's law. Salvation is another issue beyond the issue of mandating law and order in a society, and God wants both. He does not require salvation before requiring a nation to require law and order.

Israel lost her national submission to God's Law, and has suffered, politically, ever sense, through defeat by enemies and eventual exile. The NT era has seen Israel's greatest period of punishment in history, appearing even to be lost to God for all time, as a nation. But we disagree on what Paul means by "all Israel will be saved" in Rom 11. Nevertheless, that is a major proof of mine that Israel will be saved in the Millennium, after the 2nd Coming of Christ. And it accords with the many prophecies in the OT of Israel's final salvation as a nation.

You spiritualize all this. But the conversion from OT temple Law to NT spirituality does not mean, in my opinion, that Israel also must be replaced. The temple was a shadow of a heavenly reality. But that heavenly reality, Christ, came down to earth and lived among us without ceasing to be a physical man. He did not become a "spiritual entity!" You are confusing the disagreement Christians have with Jews, which we all have, with a faulty Christian belief that everything in the Law, including physical Israel, must be "spiritualized."

Physical Israel can convert to Christ in the future without being "spiritualized." They will indeed become a spiritual people, in converting to Christ. But they will not stop being Jewish People or citizens of Israel. Nor will they stop being human beings, and exist only as spirit-people.

The change from physical temple to spiritual temple was always on order, because the Prophet said, "What temple will you build for me?" It was always intended to represent God dwelling in His people, who under the Law were not made perfectly clean by temporary offerings.

Now that Christ, the real temple, has come, God can continue in His operation to save entire nations. This does not, of course, mean every individual or citizen will get spiritually saved. But the principle of God's Kingdom is that entire societies should conform to God's Law. And this will, I believe, happen in the Millennium, when Satan is bound and glorified Christians rule from heaven.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not true - another deliberate and bitter misrepresentation of Amils. How about addressing what I wrote? You are obviously struggling to get any holes in my position. You did not address one single point I made. Your rebuttal simply hurls insults at Amils (something you do often) and misrepresent what they believe. Why? (1) Because you have no answer to it. It is right and accurate and forbids your teaching. (2) You seem to be in the gall of bitterness due to your whole thesis on the ECFs falling apart.

Brother, you must be spiritually blind because I suffer no bitterness at all in this discussion! I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

I do hope I'm not wasting my time, and others read, because obviously you spend all your time commenting, falsely, on how bitter those who disagree with you are. Your time would be better spent not trying to provoke with your incessant complaints about others not following your own style of referencing old works, and Scriptures that have very little to do with the current points being made.

I gave you a perfectly good answer to your question by explaining Acts 1.6-7, how Jesus answered the question of Israel's restoration by affirming that it would happen *in God's own time.* But you just dismiss it and try to focus on other issues.

How possibly could the wicked survive the second coming and escape the universal conflagration and wholesale destruction? Premillennialists are forced to dilute the nature of the devastation, localize its extent to a particular region of the globe or spiritualize away the destruction of the wicked completely as a non-literal abstract allegory.

"Universal" and "Local" are two concepts that I use differently than you do. Universal can refer to the entire planet, comprehensively, such as in annihilation of the planet. Or it can refer to local events happening all over the planet, yet without the destruction of entire countries or the entire planet.

When the Bible speaks of universal destruction I believe the context is speaking of the defeat of Antichrist's forces, which is a world power. Antichrist incites a war that becomes global in effect without destroying all nations and the whole planet.

I believe the Bible was written in a time when terms are used that in modern times seem exaggerated. To say, for example, that the whole heaven disappeared evokes for us the image of the entire universe disappearing, because modern science looks at "heaven" as the entire universe.

But in ancient times, the disappearance of the entire heaven would have referred, most often, to a local area in which the smoke of a fire likely turned the sky dark.

But I have these kinds of discussions all the time. If you want Christ's Coming to cause the entire universe to expire, then nothing I say will likely change your mind.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Due to the overwhelming irrefutable evidence presented, you have finally (albeit reluctantly) confirmed my thesis: that early Chiliasm and modern Premil has only one tenet in common - the belief in a future thousand years.

No, don't confuse what you want to believe with what I believe. I don't believe the *peripheral elements* that you major on in any way renders Chiliasm significantly different from Modern Premil! As I said, not all Modern Premil is Dispensational. And even Dispensationalism, with its emphasis on Israel, does not render it antithetical to Chliasm, as if Chiliasm is in any way, shape, or form "Amil!"

You argue from silence about the character of the Millennial Age from the Chiliasts' pov. I believe you only cited one church father (Tertullian?) in the effort to make the entire Millennial Age free of sin. You quote a host of Church Fathers to prove something we all believe, that glorified saints inherit the New Earth and are free from of the curse of sin. And you continue to aver that Premil would characterize the Millennial Age as full of curses, death, and destruction--something Premils never do!

It doesn't seem to matter to you that Chiliasm anticipated a perfect and incorrupt earth, free of all the bondage of corruption, as Amils expect. It doesn't seem to matter to you that they taught that only the glorified redeemed are spiritually worthy to populate this approaching world, and suitably equipped in their perfected bodies to inherit it, as Amils expect.

I think you only quoted Tertullian, who seemed to depict the Millennial earth as only depicted by the glorified saints. But it is not so clear, and one reference hardly makes a quorum. Other Church Fathers referred to the inheritance of glorified saints, and not to the conditions of people on earth who they rule over. You completely evaded this point, that glorified Christians are to rule in the age to come.

It doesn't seem to matter to you that early Chiliasts believed Satan was bound at the First Advent and will be destroyed at the second coming, as Amils do.

You dishonestly ignored my argument, that IRENAEUS taught the binding of Satan at the *2nd Advent*--not the 1st! And you ignored my argument that the destruction of Antichrist's Kingdom is the destruction of Satan's Kingdom without annihilating him! But this is how you argue, by ignoring the arguments. Instead, we should just acknowledge each other's arguments, and move on to something else.

After arguing the opposite for months, you have now conceded that all other issues apart from the belief in a future thousand years are “peripheral” and “unimportant.” This is a massive concession and a tremendous vindication of the Op.

Dream on. You're going to believe and say what you wish to be true. The peripheral issues we're referring to are arguable, as I show. And it certainly doesn't create a general impression of what the early Chiliasts believed that is different from Modern Premil beliefs.

Dispensationalism does restore the Jewish belief in their ultimate national restoration, whereas ancient Chiliasts tended to incline away from belief in this. That is perhaps a significant difference--not much else.

I've said this from the beginning. Jesus and Paul both believed in Israel's salvation. Modern Premil's belief in the same actually improves ancient Chiliast beliefs that denied this.

 

[WPM]

This is an impasse because you hold to Amil, Replacement Theology, and a different view of Rom 11 than I do. I view Israel's final deliverance as *political,* accompanied by spiritual salvation, to ensure the continuity of this political salvation.

I do understand your pov, that Israel already entered into her inheritance when a remnant accepted Christ, and that Israel's future salvation is nothing more than a proposal for individuals to accept Christ. This is not, however, the picture I get of biblical prophecy concerning Israel's "final salvation," which is indeed political, being a deliverance from enemies following a long exile.

So we really have nothing more to argue about. You just won't accept what I see as a political salvation. You believe that everything went from a physical temple worship to a strictly spiritual worship without all of the physical paraphernalia. It's certainly true that the physical temple worship was replaced by our worship of Christ alone. But I don't believe this means that physical Israel is replaced by a smattering of international remnants and individuals who accept Christ.

The idea that entire nations can embrace Christian law is as old as Israel, and has never been revoked as God's desired system. In fact, the whole sense of God's Kingdom requires national submission to a national system. The fact that not every individual in a national system perfectly follows the laws and spirit of that system is of no consequence with respect to the important of a society that is required to submit to God's law. Salvation is another issue beyond the issue of mandating law and order in a society, and God wants both. He does not require salvation before requiring a nation to require law and order.

Israel lost her national submission to God's Law, and has suffered, politically, ever sense, through defeat by enemies and eventual exile. The NT era has seen Israel's greatest period of punishment in history, appearing even to be lost to God for all time, as a nation. But we disagree on what Paul means by "all Israel will be saved" in Rom 11. Nevertheless, that is a major proof of mine that Israel will be saved in the Millennium, after the 2nd Coming of Christ. And it accords with the many prophecies in the OT of Israel's final salvation as a nation.

You spiritualize all this. But the conversion from OT temple Law to NT spirituality does not mean, in my opinion, that Israel also must be replaced. The temple was a shadow of a heavenly reality. But that heavenly reality, Christ, came down to earth and lived among us without ceasing to be a physical man. He did not become a "spiritual entity!" You are confusing the disagreement Christians have with Jews, which we all have, with a faulty Christian belief that everything in the Law, including physical Israel, must be "spiritualized."

Physical Israel can convert to Christ in the future without being "spiritualized." They will indeed become a spiritual people, in converting to Christ. But they will not stop being Jewish People or citizens of Israel. Nor will they stop being human beings, and exist only as spirit-people.

The change from physical temple to spiritual temple was always on order, because the Prophet said, "What temple will you build for me?" It was always intended to represent God dwelling in His people, who under the Law were not made perfectly clean by temporary offerings.

Now that Christ, the real temple, has come, God can continue in His operation to save entire nations. This does not, of course, mean every individual or citizen will get spiritually saved. But the principle of God's Kingdom is that entire societies should conform to God's Law. And this will, I believe, happen in the Millennium, when Satan is bound and glorified Christians rule from heaven.

Another problem (of many) you have is, you do not understand what Amils believe, or you are trying to deliberately lie. One thing that is a pattern is, you normally throw out the "Replacement Theology" false charge when you are beat.

So, who do you think the Amils think that they have replaced? Is it ethnic Israel or is it spiritual Israel?

 

[WPM]

Brother, you must be spiritually blind because I suffer no bitterness at all in this discussion! I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

Oh, so I am now "spiritually blind"? It's clear: when you cannot attack the message, you attack the messenger. This is your modus operandi. You've been doing it for years. Your passive aggressive aggressive approach is grievous to watch. Your bitterness is eating you away, not me. I couldn't care what you think of me.

I do hope I'm not wasting my time, and others read, because obviously you spend all your time commenting, falsely, on how bitter those who disagree with you are. Your time would be better spent not trying to provoke with your incessant complaints about others not following your own style of referencing old works, and Scriptures that have very little to do with the current points being made.

I gave you a perfectly good answer to your question by explaining Acts 1.6-7, how Jesus answered the question of Israel's restoration by affirming that it would happen *in God's own time.* But you just dismiss it and try to focus on other issues.

No you did not. You avoided every single point I give, and you also dismissed the context of the whole discussion. You have to! You do the same with the early church fathers. You twist what they say to support your false teaching.

"Universal" and "Local" are two concepts that I use differently than you do. Universal can refer to the entire planet, comprehensively, such as in annihilation of the planet. Or it can refer to local events happening all over the planet, yet without the destruction of entire countries or the entire planet.

When the Bible speaks of universal destruction I believe the context is speaking of the defeat of Antichrist's forces, which is a world power. Antichrist incites a war that becomes global in effect without destroying all nations and the whole planet.

I believe the Bible was written in a time when terms are used that in modern times seem exaggerated. To say, for example, that the whole heaven disappeared evokes for us the image of the entire universe disappearing, because modern science looks at "heaven" as the entire universe.

But in ancient times, the disappearance of the entire heaven would have referred, most often, to a local area in which the smoke of a fire likely turned the sky dark.

But I have these kinds of discussions all the time. If you want Christ's Coming to cause the entire universe to expire, then nothing I say will likely change your mind.

Many testify that they are Premillennial because they take the Word of God literal, yet, when you put their theology to the test an opposite picture unfolds. Premillennialism spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point. Their own hermeneutics actually forbids their beliefs. As Kim Riddlebarger says: “Their own hermeneutics will not bear the weight that is assigned to it … they cannot make good on their own stated hermeneutics”

For years, Premils have boasted that they are the true literalists. They have, in turn, criticized Amils, and condemned them for spiritualizing. Ironically, this criticism has arisen due to the figurative approach Amils have to the most symbolic book in the Bible - Revelation. Of course, that is not true. I have shown for quite some time that the opposite is actually true. Premils spiritualize what is literal and literalize what is spiritual. Above is a case-in-point. Basically, it seems, Revelation should be taken absolutely literal but the countless literal passages throughout Scripture do not mean what they say. What is literal? What is spiritual? The actual wording, the context and repeated teaching of Scripture show us what is so.

From my experience, Premil is not governed by context or wording of the text of the narrative but by appalling partisan hermeneutics. It is what will allow Premil to fit. This is why Premil should be rejected. Anything that exposes the belief is rejected or spiritualized in order to fit Premil. Let me illustrate.

Isaiah 34:1-4, 8: “Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree … For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.”

This is total destruction – for who and what is left behind. This is talking about the topography of the physical earth and starry host being totally destroyed. There are no survivors!

Isaiah 34 is speaking about the physical change that affects the earth, heavens and elements when Jesus comes. Premil has to often change the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words in order to get that doctrine to fit. Premil explains away the literal meaning of text after text and replaces with its alternative definition. This is not the way that Scripture should be approached. This is classic eisegesis. There is so much Scripture that forbids the Premil theory that Premil is forced to spiritualize away the clearest and most literal of Scripture. Ironically it literalizes the one book that is the most symbolic in Scripture (Revelation). This alone is grounds to reject the doctrine.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:35-44: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.”

All these refer in the one single final coming of Christ and all show that event to be climactic. The detail they teach interweaves to give us a vivid picture of the end.

 

[WPM]

Brother, you must be spiritually blind because I suffer no bitterness at all in this discussion! I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

I do hope I'm not wasting my time, and others read, because obviously you spend all your time commenting, falsely, on how bitter those who disagree with you are. Your time would be better spent not trying to provoke with your incessant complaints about others not following your own style of referencing old works, and Scriptures that have very little to do with the current points being made.

I gave you a perfectly good answer to your question by explaining Acts 1.6-7, how Jesus answered the question of Israel's restoration by affirming that it would happen *in God's own time.* But you just dismiss it and try to focus on other issues.



"Universal" and "Local" are two concepts that I use differently than you do. Universal can refer to the entire planet, comprehensively, such as in annihilation of the planet. Or it can refer to local events happening all over the planet, yet without the destruction of entire countries or the entire planet.

When the Bible speaks of universal destruction I believe the context is speaking of the defeat of Antichrist's forces, which is a world power. Antichrist incites a war that becomes global in effect without destroying all nations and the whole planet.

I believe the Bible was written in a time when terms are used that in modern times seem exaggerated. To say, for example, that the whole heaven disappeared evokes for us the image of the entire universe disappearing, because modern science looks at "heaven" as the entire universe.

But in ancient times, the disappearance of the entire heaven would have referred, most often, to a local area in which the smoke of a fire likely turned the sky dark.

But I have these kinds of discussions all the time. If you want Christ's Coming to cause the entire universe to expire, then nothing I say will likely change your mind.

2 Peter 3:3-13: “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

How possibly could the wicked survive the second coming and escape the universal conflagration and wholesale destruction? Premillennialists are forced to dilute the nature of the devastation, localize its extent to a particular region of the globe or spiritualize away the destruction of the wicked completely as a non-literal abstract allegory.

What happens to creation when Jesus arrives? 1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise. 2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, 3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. 4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The Premillennialist claims to be a literalist, so there is no spiritualization that can explain this away. It is water-tight.

Revelation 19:11-16 makes clear, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall shepherd them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

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.”

Amils take this literal! This is complete, wholesale, and total destruction - for those left behind. There are no survivors! Check out the detail here and show me how anyone could survive this? Revelation 19 forbids your doctrine. This shows how Premils are not the literalists they constantly claim. They spiritualize multiple passages that expose their doctrine. You localize the destruction in Revelation 19, despite it saying the opposite, 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. Work that out! That is as water-tight and as comprehensive and all-embracing as the Holy Spirit can explain it. Obviously not enough for Premils, with their preconceived doctrine on chronology.

 

[WPM]

No, don't confuse what you want to believe with what I believe. I don't believe the *peripheral elements* that you major on in any way renders Chiliasm significantly different from Modern Premil! As I said, not all Modern Premil is Dispensational. And even Dispensationalism, with its emphasis on Israel, does not render it antithetical to Chliasm, as if Chiliasm is in any way, shape, or form "Amil!"

You argue from silence about the character of the Millennial Age from the Chiliasts' pov. I believe you only cited one church father (Tertullian?) in the effort to make the entire Millennial Age free of sin. You quote a host of Church Fathers to prove something we all believe, that glorified saints inherit the New Earth and are free from of the curse of sin. And you continue to aver that Premil would characterize the Millennial Age as full of curses, death, and destruction--something Premils never do!



I think you only quoted Tertullian, who seemed to depict the Millennial earth as only depicted by the glorified saints. But it is not so clear, and one reference hardly makes a quorum. Other Church Fathers referred to the inheritance of glorified saints, and not to the conditions of people on earth who they rule over. You completely evaded this point, that glorified Christians are to rule in the age to come.



You dishonestly ignored my argument, that IRENAEUS taught the binding of Satan at the *2nd Advent*--not the 1st! And you ignored my argument that the destruction of Antichrist's Kingdom is the destruction of Satan's Kingdom without annihilating him! But this is how you argue, by ignoring the arguments. Instead, we should just acknowledge each other's arguments, and move on to something else.



Dream on. You're going to believe and say what you wish to be true. The peripheral issues we're referring to are arguable, as I show. And it certainly doesn't create a general impression of what the early Chiliasts believed that is different from Modern Premil beliefs.

Dispensationalism does restore the Jewish belief in their ultimate national restoration, whereas ancient Chiliasts tended to incline away from belief in this. That is perhaps a significant difference--not much else.

I've said this from the beginning. Jesus and Paul both believed in Israel's salvation. Modern Premil's belief in the same actually improves ancient Chiliast beliefs that denied this.

The evidence Amillennialists have brought to the table is detailed, rock-solid, irrefutable, accurate and totally compelling. Your rebuttals have consisted of evasive replies, personal opinion, unfounded speculation and wild unsubstantiated claims. Having nothing of evidential worth to present, you are forced to turn to a discredited Dispy historian writer like Thomas Ice for succor. This shows how devoid you are of support and how desperate you are for backing.

This thread has strongly reinforced everything that was stated in the original Op. In fact, it added solid meat on the bones in so many ways, demonstrating that the eschatology of the early Church was classic Amillennialism. Premillennialists have had no other choice but to strip Premil down to one tenet and ignore every single fundamental advanced by the theory in order to get their round Premil peg to fit into the Chiliast square hole. As this discussion developed, and finding that even this limited requirement wasn’t working, they were forced to move the goalposts and reduce Premillennialism down to a "no-tenets" doctrine. Now they didn’t even need to have any mention or description of conditions on a future millennial earth to render an early writer a Premillennialist.

Clearly, there is no viable rebuttal. One cannot produce something from nothing. What is more, the facts speak for themselves. All we are getting now from Premil advocates is name-calling. That is a classic sign that the case has been strongly proved.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It is a subject I am studying and writing on, but far from my focus. My overwhelming focus as a Christian is the Word of God. That is where i find multiple support for Amil.

Though you won't receive this: Your support for amil comes from a prior amill perspective taught to you and how you formed your hermeneutic of Scripture. It is not something that a believer naturally arrives at when reading!

God showed me something this past week while visiting my son and his family.

Many amils- say the 1000 years is allegorical and means one day with the Lord! Well one of Gods days (heavenlay timing I guess) still equal 1,000 human years so the kingdom on earth still lasts 1,000 years!

Some have even argues that 1000 is a complete allegorical number and post other scriptures where it is used allegorically or euphemistically and say every time it appears in Scripture we have to take it allegorically. that is failing hermeneutics.

 

[WPM]

Though you won't receive this: Your support for amil comes from a prior amill perspective taught to you and how you formed your hermeneutic of Scripture. It is not something that a believer naturally arrives at when reading!

God showed me something this past week while visiting my son and his family.

Many amils- say the 1000 years is allegorical and means one day with the Lord! Well one of Gods days (heavenlay timing I guess) still equal 1,000 human years so the kingdom on earth still lasts 1,000 years!

Some have even argues that 1000 is a complete allegorical number and post other scriptures where it is used allegorically or euphemistically and say every time it appears in Scripture we have to take it allegorically. that is failing hermeneutics.

Your reasoning is wrong! What you attribute to Revelation 20 enjoys zero support elsewhere in the Word.

I was brought up Pretrib and Premil. Like many, my study of Scripture exposed that teaching. Now i am in line with the Book.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Your reasoning is wrong! What you attribute to Revelation 20 enjoys zero support elsewhere in the Word.

I was brought up Pretrib and Premil. Like many, my study of Scripture exposed that teaching. Now i am in line with the Book.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

What does any of this have to do with Rev. 20? Even if all of these are figurative( which by the way these are all ot books) it is not a command for 1000 to be figurative every time it appears.

For all you know some of them can be literal. You just don't know. you just assume they are all figurative.

But if you are one of the ones who believe we are living in this allegorical 1,000 year period, then when did the first resurrection happen?

2. When did those who refused th emark and were beheaded resurrect and co -reign with Jesus?

3. When was Satan chained and abyssed??

4. what was that mark they refused?

5. Is that mark still active?

6. The passage clearly says only those who were beheaded and worshipped not the beast and take his mark were resurrected. The second death has no authority over them

. So by direct reference- any believer who has not been resurrected yet, the second death has authority over them! That is a lousy place to be!

There is simply no warrant for saying the 1,000 years mentioned 6 times in Rev. have to be allegorical to refer to an indefinite time frame. It is even with less biblical warrant as to think that these vents are historic as they are only mentioned near the end of time. for after this mystical time frame, Satan is loosed attacks earthly Jerusalem and eternity rolls around!

 

[WPM]

What does any of this have to do with Rev. 20? Even if all of these are figurative( which by the way these are all ot books) it is not a command for 1000 to be figurative every time it appears.

For all you know some of them can be literal. You just don't know. you just assume they are all figurative.

But if you are one of the ones who believe we are living in this allegorical 1,000 year period, then when did the first resurrection happen?

2. When did those who refused th emark and were beheaded resurrect and co -reign with Jesus?

3. When was Satan chained and abyssed??

4. what was that mark they refused?

5. Is that mark still active?

6. The passage clearly says only those who were beheaded and worshipped not the beast and take his mark were resurrected. The second death has no authority over them

. So by direct reference- any believer who has not been resurrected yet, the second death has authority over them! That is a lousy place to be!

There is simply no warrant for saying the 1,000 years mentioned 6 times in Rev. have to be allegorical to refer to an indefinite time frame. It is even with less biblical warrant as to think that these vents are historic as they are only mentioned near the end of time. for after this mystical time frame, Satan is loosed attacks earthly Jerusalem and eternity rolls around!

Let us take the phrase “a thousand years.” There is a big difference between “a thousand years” (which Scriptures states) and "one thousand years" (as you keep stating). The number 'one' is not included in the narrative, you must insert it in. Rather it is the more general thousand.

The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter 3. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage is often advanced by Premillennialists as proof of a literal physical future earthly millennium. Such people confidently advance it in such a way, as if it states, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as tomorrow which is yet to come’. However, a careful reading of this inspired narrative reveals that it rather in stark contrast declares, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” This passage therefore does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium.

The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “we spend our years as a tale that is told” (v 9).

No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12).

In Ecclesiastes 6:3, 6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

 

[WPM]

What does any of this have to do with Rev. 20? Even if all of these are figurative( which by the way these are all ot books) it is not a command for 1000 to be figurative every time it appears.

For all you know some of them can be literal. You just don't know. you just assume they are all figurative.

But if you are one of the ones who believe we are living in this allegorical 1,000 year period, then when did the first resurrection happen?

2. When did those who refused th emark and were beheaded resurrect and co -reign with Jesus?

3. When was Satan chained and abyssed??

4. what was that mark they refused?

5. Is that mark still active?

6. The passage clearly says only those who were beheaded and worshipped not the beast and take his mark were resurrected. The second death has no authority over them

. So by direct reference- any believer who has not been resurrected yet, the second death has authority over them! That is a lousy place to be!

There is simply no warrant for saying the 1,000 years mentioned 6 times in Rev. have to be allegorical to refer to an indefinite time frame. It is even with less biblical warrant as to think that these vents are historic as they are only mentioned near the end of time. for after this mystical time frame, Satan is loosed attacks earthly Jerusalem and eternity rolls around!

Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter, however, says in response, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (vv 5-9).

This familiar passage closely parallels the reading that we have just analysed in Psalm 90, indicating the same spiritual truth – that God is not limited to time. Again, notably, the contrast between the number one and a thousand is employed to simply represent an important divine truth.

Some theologians mistakenly attempt to use this passage to argue that one of God’s eternal days represents a literal thousand earthly years and that the commencement occurs at the time of Second Advent. However, they do err in their assumption, in that, this text simply indicates the briefness of time with God. 2 Peter 3 does not in anyway indicate a future earthly millennium kingdom anywhere in this reading. Peter is simply reminding such people that time is absolutely nothing to the King of glory. He ultimately sits outside of time in the realm of eternity. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state.

Christ speaks of the unprepared state of many professing believers, who are exposed for their unpreparedness in Luke 12:45-46, saying, “if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”

It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters. Peter says in response, “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Peter thus outlines two distinct yet contrasting time equations in this passage for the sole purpose of expressing a deep spiritual truth. Notwithstanding, and not surprisingly, the Premillennialist are swift to selectively advance the first aspect of this calculation as supposed evidence that one of God’s heavenly days represents a thousand literal temporal earthly years. However, whilst they unquestionably address, and happily literalise, the first part of this calculation they are understandably careful to side step the second part of the sum. Evidently, such is for the reason that it doesn’t fit their flawed hyper-literalist mode of interpretation.

Significantly, this reading in no place suggests the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years. The Premillennialist forces that into the reading. In the above passage it simply indicates “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Those who take the aforementioned verses to support a future 1,000-year millennium of peace are faced with an insurmountable inconsistency when they examine the detail of the remainder of the chapter, and try and get it to fit their paradigm. 2 Peter 3:10-13 continues, “the day of the Lord will come (or arrive) as thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall ‘go or pass away, or perish’ with a great noise, and the elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be ‘burned up utterly or consumed wholly’. Seeing then that all these things shall be ‘dissolved, loosened or broke up’ … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be ‘dissolved, melted or loosed’, and the elements shall ‘melt by being set on fire’?” Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

This passage is so clear, final and all-consummating that one wonders how anyone could remotely imagine that creation could survive such an all-consummating fiery event. One also wonders how the Holy Spirit could have possibly advanced more explicit language to indicate the idea of total devastation. Whatever way you look at this chapter there is absolutely no allowance made or possibility for a future post-Second Coming millennial kingdom on this earth. Peter knows of no other coming of Christ other than that which eradicate the heavens, elements and the earth in one stupendous conflagration.

Anyone who contends that this passage supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of these last verses. This vivid account of complete devastation and utter destruction that occurs in this final day totally destroys any credence for the advancement of the Premillennial supposition. If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.

The Greek word katakakeesetai used here carries a very strong and unambiguous meaning of ‘burned up utterly’ or ‘consumed wholly’. The King James Version uses it 12 times (Matt 3:12, 13:30, 40, Luke 3:17, Acts 19:19, 1 Cor 3:15, Heb 13:11, 2 Pet 3:10, Rev 8:7 (x2), 17:16, 18:8, each of which interpret the word the same.

Notwithstanding, this passage agrees totally with the all-consummating character of every other explicit Second Coming passage in Scripture, the day of the Lord sees the immediate destruction of the wicked and also this current world. In short, the day of the Lord will come as thief in the night; in the which:

1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise.
2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’,
3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.
4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.

Seeing then that all these things (that is 1-4) shall be ‘luomenoon’ or ‘dissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The old here is completely consumed by fire in an all-consummating conflagration, in order to make way for the new eternal state. One cannot imagine how the Holy Spirit couple have made the concluding nature of Christ’s Coming simpler or plainer to the human mind in this explicit passage.

Those who spiritualise this day by stretching this fiery time-period out over the duration of a literal 1,000 years forget that the detail embodied within the description of the said day destroys any credence that they have for promoting their mistaken interpretation of Revelation 20. They completely demolish their own argument by advancing such a fanciful idea. They are quick to argue “day” doesn’t mean a literal day in Scripture, and “hour” doesn’t mean a literal hour in Scripture, yet they always arrive at a literal future thousand-year millennium every time they examine the symbolic detail of Revelation 20.

 

[WPM]

Op Note

Some of the challenges the early writers faced were:

(1) They were not blessed with the completed canon of Scripture as we are today. They did not have the written New Testament.
(2) While were quickly growing, the New Testament Church was still an infant, immature and developing organism. Doctrine was still evolving.
(3) Christians were facing many internal and external pressures as they attempted to establish themselves in a hostile world that counted them a menace. The Church was being opposed on all sides. They were being civilly resisted by the Roman authorities who counted them a threat to their power and influence. They were being defied by the scattered Jews who were hostile to Christ and the Christian message. They were being attacked by “the Christian heretics” who were deliberately distorting the truth and bringing confusion to the Christian camp.

One of the most explosive historic facts that many overlook is that there is only one known Chiliast advocate to be found in the 3 key centers of Christianity in the first 400 years after the cross – Israel, Syria and Egypt. That was Nepos (who ministered in the Egyptian church around AD 230-250). Think about this: there is no known spokesman of Millennialism in Israel, Syria and Egypt for 200 years after Calvary until Nepos. However, his influence was quickly and strongly suppressed when it became known. This is significant! There is no record of that doctrine ever arising again amongst the early fathers in Egypt. It seemed to fizzle out after that.

We should remind ourselves, the heart of Christianity started off in Israel, but through persecution it soon moved to both Syria and Egypt. With this, the epicenter of power and influence within Christendom shifted from Jerusalem (in Israel), to both Antioch (in Syria) and Alexandria (in Egypt). It was from there that the faith spread throughout the world. Greece was another country that quickly became a notable focus of the New Testament as the Gospel quickly spread throughout that area. This can be seen by where most of the New Testament Epistles were addressed to. Notably, there is no sign of Chiliasm in what is now modern-day Greece, but rather in occupied Asia Minor, which covers modern-day Turkey.

When we search for Chiliast teaching between AD 30-430 (which is the gamut of this research), we cannot find one single shred of teaching on a future millennial kingdom from any of the early Church fathers based in Israel, Syria, Egypt and modern Greece. Think about this: there was only one teacher of Chiliasm in the very heartland of early Christianity during it transformative days. That is significant, and matters, in the light of many of the outlandish claims we hear from many modern-day partisan-historians.

The seat of power and influence within the Faith gradually moved over the early centuries from Antioch (in Syria) and Alexandria (in Egypt) to Rome (in Italy). Notably: the Italian church centered in Rome only possessed 2 known Chiliast proponents in the first 400 years after the cross – Hippolytus (Rome, Italy, AD 170–236) and Gaudentius (Brescia, Italy, AD 387-410).

So, we are looking here at a combined total of 3 known Chiliasts among the Patristic writers in the whole of Israel (including the church in Jerusalem), Greece, Syria (including the church in Antioch), Egypt (including the church in Alexandrian) and Italy (including the Roman church) during the first 400 years after Calvary, none of which, notably, held the Premillennial scheme that we have today. This totally destroys the widespread false Premillennial propaganda that the early Church was overwhelmingly Premillennial. The opposite was actually the case.

The Israeli writers/writings came in the form of The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (AD 65-80), The Grandsons of Jude (1st century), The Ascension of Isaiah (late 1st century to early 2nd century), The Apocalypse of Peter (written between the years AD 132-135), 5 Ezra (2nd century), The Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate (AD 150-255), Hegesippus (flourished between AD 150 and 180), Eusebius (263-339), Epiphanius of Salamis (AD 310-403) and Cyril (AD 386).

In Syria we had Thaddeus (early 1st Century), Ignatius (AD 98-117), The Odes of Solomon (Middle of the 2nd century), Tatian (AD 170) Theophilus (His death probably occurred between AD 183-185), The Acts of Thomas (AD 200-225), Didascalia Apostolorum (AD 200-250), Lucian (AD 240-312), Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (Before AD 325) Synod of Antioch (AD 325), Aphrahat (AD 270–345), 1st Synod of Antioch (Summer AD 341), Ephraem (AD 306-373), 2nd Synod of Antioch (Summer AD 342), The Council of Antioch (AD 344) and Eusebius of Emesa (AD 300–360).

In Egypt there was Barnabas (Written in AD 130-131), The Teachings of Silvanus (AD 150), Clement (AD 150 - 215), Origen (AD 185-254), Dionysius (AD 248 - November 17, AD 265), Coracion (AD 230-280), Alexander (Bishop from AD 313, died AD 326 or AD 328), Pachomius (AD 292-348), Antony (AD 251–356), Serapion (AD 330 to 360), The Council of Sirmium (11th June AD 351), Athanasius (AD 296 - 373) and Didymus the Blind (AD 313–398). Abba Moses (AD 330-405). Finally, we have Nepos (AD 230-250) the only Egyptian father that taught Chiliasm in Egypt.

In Greece there was Mathetes (AD 90), Aristides (AD 120-130), Polycrates (AD 130-196), Athenagoras (wrote AD 177), Marcellus Ancyra in Galatia, (AD 285-374), The Council of Seleucia (AD 359) and Epiphanes (AD 315-403).

In Italy we saw The Shepherd of Hermas (written in AD 88-99), Clement (Died around AD 99), 2 Clement (Early 2nd century), Old Roman Symbol (or Old Roman Creed) (AD 200), Novatian (AD 200–258), Minucius Felix (Flourished AD 200-240; died AD 250), Caius (17 December, AD 283 to 22 April, AD 296), The Apostles’ Creed (AD 390), Jerome (AD 331-420), Ambrose (AD 339 – 4 April AD 397), Firmicus Maternus (AD 346), The Council of Ariminum (July AD 359), Tyrannius Rufinus (AD 340/345-410), Philastrius (also Philaster or Filaster) (Died before AD 397), Maximus (DOB unknown – death between AD 408 and 423), Paulinus (AD 354 – June 22 AD 431). Finally, we Hippolytus (AD 170–236) and Gaudentius (Bishop from about AD 387 until his death AD 410) that taught Chilaism in Egypt.

The Chiliast view on the other hand originated and prospered in Asia Minor and Africa. It later moved to Europe.

Here are the areas of origin or influence the Chiliast and Premillennialist writers operated in:

Those who operated in, or came from, Asia Minor were Papias (AD 130-140), Justin Martyr (Asia Minor - AD 100-166), Irenaeus, (raised in Asia Minor, ministered in Gaul France - AD 150), Aviricius Marcellus (Hieropolis, Lesser Phrygia, Asia Minor - flourished AD 163), Methodius (Olympus, Asia Minor - died AD 311).

Those who taught advocated Chiliasm and Premillennialism in, or originated from, wider Africa (outside of Egypt) over the 1st 400 years after the crucifixion were Tertullian (Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia - AD 145-260), Commodianus (Africa - wrote between AD 251 and 258), Lactantius (Africa - AD 250-317), Quintus Julius Hilarianus (Africa - written AD 397).

Those who advocated Chiliasm and Premillennialism in the rest of Europe (outside of Italy) for 400 years after Calvary were Victorinus (Pettau, Hungary – AD 270), and Sulpicius Severus (Gaul now France - AD 360-425).

This gives us a broad sense of the eschatological landscape. It also gives us a true perspective of the nature, scale and development of theology of the early Church.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Another problem (of many) you have is, you do not understand what Amils believe, or you are trying to deliberately lie. One thing that is a pattern is, you normally throw out the "Replacement Theology" false charge when you are beat.

So, who do you think the Amils think that they have replaced? Is it ethnic Israel or is it spiritual Israel?

RT has a definition, and is not meant to be an insult. The rejection of ethnic Israel's restoration in the Millennium is RT.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How possibly could the wicked survive the second coming and escape the universal conflagration and wholesale destruction? Premillennialists are forced to dilute the nature of the devastation, localize its extent to a particular region of the globe or spiritualize away the destruction of the wicked completely as a non-literal abstract allegory.

Yes, as I said, we define "universal" differently. It is either the annihilation of the planet, which the Bible says will not happen, or it is devastating judgments that take place across the earth without destroying the whole planet.