The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, you're trying to "compare Scripture with Scripture, which is entirely reasonable. But that's not how one interprets a passage by its own context.

Huh? Why should we think Revelation 20 has its own context, as if nothing referenced there is taught anywhere else in scripture? It references Jesus reigning. Other scripture does as well. It references His followers as being priests, as does 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:5-6. It references a short time period during which Satan is no longer restrained and is loosed, as does 2 Thess 2:3-12. It references the day of judgment, as do many other scriptures. But, you seem to be trying to tell me that I should interpret Revelation 20 in isolation from the rest of scripture as if everything contained within it is not written about anywhere else in scripture. No, I'm not going to do that.

One is systematic theology, and the other is the fine art of interpretation.

You are boring me with this.

So, we should ask the question: does Rev 20 teach, in context, a literal 1000 year reign of Christ? I would say yes.

There's another question you should be asking. Does interpreting the thousand years literally line up with the rest of scripture? I would say no.

Then, in comparing this passage with other passages,

What now? Comparing with other passages? I thought you just said "that's not how one interprets a passage by its own context"? I can't figure you out.

such as the judgment of the dead in Dan 12.1-2 I would have to try to systematize them, to see if they can harmonize. I would see the judgment of Antichrist at the 2nd Coming as being one form of "judgment," and the resurrection of the wicked dead at the end of the Millennium as another form of "judgment." Seen together, this judgment begins at the 2nd Coming, though the resurrection and final sentencing begins at the end of the Millennium. But yes, it's a reasonable question.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you were trying to say here.

I actually do the same as you.

Hmmm....

I was raised in an Amil environment and was perfectly happy with Christian doctrine without any interference from Millennial teachings. It really doesn't affect my belief in basic Christian doctrines. And so, I see the Millennial teaching as something God wants us to know, and yet not necessary as a tool of speculation, nor a matter of salvation.

Not once have I, or any other Amil here, ever suggested that what we believe about Revelation 20 has anything to do with salvation. Do the arguments get heated? Obviously. We all care about truth whether it's something essential for salvation or not. So, when it comes to defending the truth from scripture, we all tend to get pretty defensive and don't want to allow anyone to teach anything false from scripture, regardless of whether it's something essential for salvation or not. That's a good thing to want to defend the honor of God's Holy Word.

I do view other Scriptures as possibly applicable, such as Dan 12.1-2. I just find the warning not to tamper with the meaning of Revelation more important. And since there is no overwhelming sense that it is symbolic, I just take it literally.

Can you understand that the warnings about taking away from or adding to the book of Revelation are in regards to doing that purposely and knowingly? I don't believe anyone here is doing that. We are all trying to interpret it to the best of our ability and no one is purposely trying to add to or take away from the book. Why would we be punished for misinterpreting the book despite honest attempts to interpret the book accurately? That is not at all what those warning are about. If they were, then it would be foolish for anyone to even attempt to interpret it.

Not taking it literally makes a mess out of the narrative.

I believe taking it literally makes a mess of it because it contradicts so much other scripture. Your approach of interpreting Revelation 20 in isolation is not a wise one. It should be interpreted with all of scripture in mind. You should be able to corroborate your interpretation with the rest of scripture and I don't believe you can.

"Thousand" is a nice round number, which in itself could suggest it is symbolic. But again, the narrative makes no sense unless it is take literally.

Says you, but what is that based on? Why are you saying that? You often make claims like that without any explanation for why you are claiming it.

If, however, the narrative was intended to be given as an allegory, it would make sense. But it is not given in that way.

Not given in that way? What does that mean? When the word thousand is used figuratively in other verses in scripture such as the ones that reference God's promises to "a thousand generations" (Deut 7:9, etc.) or the reference to God owning the cattle on "a thousand hills" (Psalm 50:10), are those somehow given in an allegorical sense? I don't even know what that means. As I said before, we can't determine if it's a literal thousand years or not just from the text in Revelation 20 alone. We need to determine that by what scripture teaches as a whole regarding the things that are referenced in Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So is that why you interpret 1000 years symbolically, because a natural man would read 1000 years and accept it as 1000 years?

No. I interpret it symbolically because that lines up with what is taught in the rest of scripture. Other scripture indicates that Jesus reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23), that we are priests now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9), and that there is one general resurrection event of all the dead (John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:1-2), and one judgment day (Acts 17:31, Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, etc.).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No Paul was 100% right! But He was not speaking of taking a passage and subtly reinterpreting it to alter its meaning! That is what amil does.

That is a lie! This is all some of you have. Lies. You can't make coherent arguments using scripture, so you resort to lies about Amil instead. It's pathetic.

Remember we know the deep things of God if we pursue Him. The world considers the bible foolish. They do not understand how Jesus death wipes away sin. Most reject the physical resurrection. Most reject god living in us!

Can you please learn to capitalize God? You do this all the time. Why? Also, I don't know why you're telling me these things that we all know.

Most reject hell. Most reject salvation by faith through grace alone- this is what is meant by discernment. Accepting the message as declared and not subtly altered like the cults do.

What does this even mean? You act as if everything in the Bible is literal and straightforward. That's clearly not the case.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because when people disagree as do those in all these subjects who has spiritual discernment and who doesn't. You accept a physical resurrection because it is written in a literal form. You reject a literal 1000 year kingdom though that also is written in a literal form.

What does that even mean, to be written in a literal form? Some might say that about the "thousand generations" referenced in verses like Deuteronomy 7:9 or "the thousand hills" referenced in Psalm 50:10, that they are written in a literal form. Is that how we are supposed to interpret scripture, by determining what is supposedly "written in a literal form" and what isn't?

I know why I read a passage as a euphemism or idiom.

And why is that?

it is not based on any man or past teachers. What is your rule to accept a passage as speaking euphemistically or idiopmatically?

My rule is to interpret any given verse or passage in such a way that doesn't contradict other scripture. So, for example, to me, interpreting the thousand years literally contradicts a lot of other scripture, so then the question to ask is can the thousand years be figurative or is there some reason why it can't be? The answer is that it certainly can be figurative since we have several examples in scripture of the word "thousand" being used figuratively. So, to me, that has to be the way to interpret it since, again, interpreting it literally contradicts other scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The average believer has the Holy Spirit. we don't need some special "intrerpreter" to tell us what god meant by the words He wrote!

Who said otherwise? Not me. If that's what you think I was saying, then I don't think you read what I said very carefully since that isn't even close to what I was saying.

How to apply them? Yes! How to understand them? No for ALL BELIEVERS already have the Holy Spirit.

Of course. I didn't say otherwise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And that discernment comes from teh Holy Spirit.

Of course. I didn't say otherwise.

You forget that when Paul and the others wrote- what they wrote was radical for the day!

Where are you getting the idea that I forgot that?

It is common for us 2 millenia removed from their origins. But people to day still reject the New Testament as written. Because to accept them requires spiritual understanding (discernment) which comes form the Holy Spirit.

Of course.

YOu forget that all the epistles are about salvation apart from works ( as was the norm in that day) and that works are a fruit of being saved, as well as the physical resurrection.

Here you are again telling me that I'm forgetting something. Where are you getting this idea that I'm forgetting these things? No, I am not.

Discernment is not reading the Scriptures and coming up with other meanings from what is written as do amils, covenant theology et.al.

That's ridiculous. Discernment is required to tell the difference between literal and figurative text, which I believe Premils are generally terrible at. Talking about coming up with other meanings than what is written is your way of saying we should just assume everything is literal unless it spells it out for us that it's symbolic. But, we're not little kids who need everything spelled out to us like that. That's where the discernment that we're talking about comes in. You seem to expect to be spoon fed everything, but that isn't how scripture works, especially in regards to the type of things we talk about on this forum.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And the only place that puts a time frame on these things is REv. 20.

Wrong. Revelation 20 is not the only place that puts a time frame on Jesus reigning, on His followers reigning with Him, on Satan's binding, on the resurrection of the dead or on the judgment of people. We need to look at what other scripture teaches about those things and make sure we interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that doesn't contradict what those other scriptures teach. Premils don't seem to be too concerned about that. Scripture repeatedly teaches that there will be only one judgment day when all people will be judged, but Premil seems to just ignore that and changes all those scriptures in favor of how it interprets Revelation 20 in isolation.

Jesus has to reign for a temporal time for once He defeats sin and death as is described in Rev. 20, He hands His kingdom back to the Father and submits HImself to the Father.

He reigns now. Scripture teaches that (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, Rev 1:5-6, etc.). Why not interpret Revelation 20 accordingly?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Suppose we were required to take these references to “a thousand generations” literally, then, it would indicate an actual earthly time period of around 40,000 years – 40 years multiplied by 1000. However, it is NOT in the slightest suggesting a thousand literal generations. It is simply telling us that the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed is true, boundless and eternal. Significantly, our last references closes with the truth that this glorious Divine pact is “an everlasting covenant.” Psalm 105:8 supports, saying, “He hath remembered his covenant for ever.”

Psalms 111:10 supports this supposition, saying, “he hath commanded his covenant for ever.”

Does Christ only own the cattle on one thousand hills or does he own them all? Of course there is no way that this passage suggests that Christ only owns the cattle on one thousand hills. Rather, He owns every beast on every hill, thus revealing His omnipotence. The statement reference the “thousand hills” is preceded y the introductory comment: “For every beast of the forest is mine.” This is simply presented in such a way as to express the unfathomable authority and power of the living God. It beautifully correlates with the truth expressed in 1 Corinthians 10:28, which states, “the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.”

The term “a thousand” is thus used to in some way express the nature and awesome power of Almighty God. The phrase is used to portray the Sovereignty of God and His supreme kingship over all creation. We must clearly acknowledge that the figure ‘a thousand’ is consistently and symbolically employed, throughout the Word of God, to denote an unfathomable amount or a vast period.

Agree. It's just unbelievable that anyone would not be able to discern that the word "thousand" is being used figuratively in verses like the ones that reference "a thousand generations" (Deut 7:9, etc.) or the one that references "a thousand hills" (Psalm 50:10).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is a total lie, and you know it. You do it to be provocative. You like to stir the pot. Why can you not tell the truth? Even Premils have counseled you over the years to stop hurling it, but you refuse. You like to antagonize on this matter. You are quick to speak on behalf of of Amils and slow to listen to how your brethren actually understand the whole dynamic between Israel and the Church. You commonly disparagingly throw the “Replacement Theology” charge at those they disagree with, without any effort of trying to ascertain what they really believe. You allege that their evangelical opponents believe (1) the Church has replaced ethnic Israel and that (2) God has no further future plans for the nation of Israel. You claim such without any factual or fair basis for doing so.

You create a straw man argument either through genuine ignorance, as a willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit their brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning. Regardless, your charge is a logical fallacy. Despite being robustly challenged and repeatedly corrected, you continue to hurl this depreciatory slur in an attempt to justify your own partial teaching. It is employed by you to be deliberately provocative and intentionally misrepresent their opponent’s position. When all is said and done, this only serves to expose the weakness of the Premil position, rather than carry any real, valid or accurate theological credence.

The teaching of the Church for most of its history has rejected the idea that there is any theologically distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ during the new covenant era. They believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start. These believers do not claim to hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Expansion Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Remnant Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. Regardless of which one of these phrases is preferred, its advocates believe that the New Testament Church (assembly) is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same.

Exactly! Well said. How can we believe in replacement theology when we don't believe anyone or anything has been replaced? How can Randy not understand what we're telling him about this? It has to be that he is purposely trying to annoy us by continuing to use that term. I can't think of any other reason. It's not up to him to determine if we believe in replacement theology, it's up to us. And we don't. He should accept that instead of insisting that we believe in that nonsense.

 

[WPM]

Exactly! Well said. How can we believe in replacement theology when we don't believe anyone or anything has been replaced? How can Randy not understand what we're telling him about this? It has to be that he is purposely trying to annoy us by continuing to use that term. I can't think of any other reason. It's not up to him to determine if we believe in replacement theology, it's up to us. And we don't. He should accept that instead of insisting that we believe in that nonsense.

Totally agree.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Huh? Why should we think Revelation 20 has its own context, as if nothing referenced there is taught anywhere else in scripture? It references Jesus reigning. Other scripture does as well. It references His followers as being priests, as does 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:5-6. It references a short time period during which Satan is no longer restrained and is loosed, as does 2 Thess 2:3-12. It references the day of judgment, as do many other scriptures. But, you seem to be trying to tell me that I should interpret Revelation 20 in isolation from the rest of scripture as if everything contained within it is not written about anywhere else in scripture. No, I'm not going to do that.

You can do whatever you like, brother. I'm just touting the principles of interpretation. You begin with the context in question. Of course, you can follow lines of reference. My brother and I clash a little, but not seriously. He's a biblical languages person, and not so much into systematic theology. I'm the opposite. He forces me to deal strictly with the language, which is a good thing. I tend to view things from a broader perspective, which is what you're talking about.

You are boring me with this.

Alright, if you don't care to know the difference between systematic theology and interpreting a passage in context, we need discuss it no longer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course I can.

Of course, but, unfortunately, I run into a fair amount of unreasonable people on these forums, so I need to spell things out sometimes to people like that.

Empty words.

Do you think I don't know that? Of course I do. But, guess what, Randy. You are not the one who decides for me what I should take literally and what I should take allegorically.

Good grief, man. We all know that we're sharing our opinions here. Do we have to spell that out constantly as if we're all little children who can't discern anything unless it's spelled out for us? Show me where I said that the thousand years being symbolic is a fact. I didn't. Do I believe it and come across that I strongly believe that? Sure. But, have I said it's a proven fact? No.

LOL! Who has said that? No one. Please stop wasting your time making straw man arguments. You can if you want, but it's a complete waste of time.

Of course! Do you actually think I believe otherwise?

Here's where you go off the rails. This is your man-made rule that you're trying to push on me. I don't need to go by your man-made rules.

The book clearly contains a lot of symbolism. But, you think our default in any given verse should be to assume that it's literal? That is utter nonsense! But, at the same time, we should also not assume any given verse is symbolic. We need to look at the context for any given verse to see if it is literal or symbolic while at the same time keeping in mind the rest of scripture so that we don't interpret any given verse or passage in such a way that contradicts any other scripture.

Do you seriously not know? After all these years of debating Amils, you don't know this? We base it on scripture as a whole, of course! We refuse to interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that contradicts what we see taught in many other scriptures. For example, other scripture indicates that Jesus reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, Rev 1:5, etc.) and that we are priests of the Father and Son now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9). So, we interpret Revelation 20 accordingly.

You are "out of control" emotional, which makes for an impossible discussion. When you calm down, maybe we can discuss things in a friendly way. You apparently think you're defending God's word. But if you were, you wouldn't be so high-strung. Is God in a panic? No.

I'm just asking you where Amil gets the biblical basis for allegorizing Rev 20. And you suggest it just doesn't fit in with other Scriptures. That is hardly a biblical basis for interpreting Rev 20 allegorically! I should think if God wanted to ensure we take Rev 20 allegorically that there would be something much more explicit about having to do this in the passage itself!

I have no idea why you and PM are so angry, and so contemptuous of opposing opinions on the Millennium? And I have to wonder: Don't you see yourselves in how you're dealing with this? You're utterly failing to act like Christians when you act this way!

 

[WPM]

You are "out of control" emotional, which makes for an impossible discussion. When you calm down, maybe we can discuss things in a friendly way. You apparently think you're defending God's word. But if you were, you wouldn't be so high-strung. Is God in a panic? No.

I'm just asking you where Amil gets the biblical basis for allegorizing Rev 20. And you suggest it just doesn't fit in with other Scriptures. That is hardly a biblical basis for interpreting Rev 20 allegorically! I should think if God wanted to ensure we take Rev 20 allegorically that there would be something much more explicit about having to do this in the passage itself!

I have no idea why you and PM are so angry, and so contemptuous of opposing opinions on the Millennium? And I have to wonder: Don't you see yourselves in how you're dealing with this? You're utterly failing to act like Christians when you act this way!

It seems like everyone is angry if they opose you. You can taunt us about being blind and idolatrous and that is cool. But when we call out your insults we are angry.

You lost the debate a long time ago. Now you are back to avoidance and derailing.

 

[covenantee]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? As I said Peter is addressing Christian Jews. They are part of the international Church.

You claim that the holy nation of 1 Peter 2:9 is the nation of Israel.

1 Peter 2:5 begins with "Ye...are..." It is followed within the verse by descriptions which are exclusive to the Church. Thus "ye" in this verse belong to the Church.

1 Peter 2:9 begins with "Ye are..." As identified in 1 Peter 2:5, "ye" belong to the Church.

Thus it those who belong to the Church that are identified in 1 Peter 2:9 as a holy nation.

It is not those who belong to the condemned nation of Israel that are identified as a holy nation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

.
It seems like everyone is angry if they opose you. You can taunt us about being blind and idolatrous and that is cool. But when we call out your insults we are angry.

You lost the debate a long time ago. Now you are back to avoidance and derailing.

Please cite where I called you blind and idolatrous? If I did, I don't know why I would. As far as I know, you hold to orthodox Christian doctrine, and believe in spiritual conversion. You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism. I say this, tongue in cheek, because I'm really hoping Christ is your "idol."

 

[Randy Kluth]

You claim that the holy nation of 1 Peter 2:9 is the nation of Israel.

1 Peter 2:5 begins with "Ye...are..." It is followed within the verse by descriptions which are exclusive to the Church. Thus "ye" in this verse belong to the Church.

1 Peter 2:9 begins with "Ye are..." As identified in 1 Peter 2:5, "ye" belong to the Church.

Thus it those who belong to the Church that are identified in 1 Peter 2:9 as a holy nation.

It is not those who belong to the condemned nation of Israel that are identified as a holy nation.

Obviously, the entire nation of Israel is *not* condemned if some of them converted to Christ or accepted Jesus as Messiah during his earthly ministry. Paul argued that a remnant of the nation remains in good standing with God. And it is in light of this that Peter encourages the believing Jews to retain their calling as a "holy nation," with the assumption that they all believed Israel, as a nation, would eventually fully recover.

 

[WPM]

Please cite where I called you blind and idolatrous? If I did, I don't know why I would. As far as I know, you hold to orthodox Christian doctrine, and believe in spiritual conversion. You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism. I say this, tongue in cheek, because I'm really hoping Christ is your "idol."

There you go again! This is clearly a willful and calculated tactic by you to offend and derail. You love to antagonize. You wallow in the gutter with your ad hominem. I do not. Amil has never been an idol to me, Jesus is. I love the truth and it is that that you have an issue with. You have no answer to the climactic detail Amils present. You cannot handle the facts outlined on this thread. That is why you are frustrated. All you can do insult. Even Premils have publicly rebuked you on other boards for this.

Continue your campaign of hate if you wish but it will not stop me presenting the facts. I don't see it gaining any support for your arguments - venting never does. It just adds validity to your opponents.

Your vindictiveness, antagonism and bitterness are too much for me. You cannot address the issues or stick to the issues. That is why you function in this passive aggressive behavior.

Amil is his idol, put quite simply. Yes, that's my opinion, but it's what I've observed over a long period of time.

you must be spiritually blind

I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

I refuse to get into the gutter with you. There are plenty of others posters on all sides that address the issues and are respectful. You are out of your depth here and this debate was won a long time ago. All you are left with in your arsenal is ad hominem and avoidance. Sad!

 

[covenantee]

Obviously, the entire nation of Israel is *not* condemned if some of them converted to Christ or accepted Jesus as Messiah during his earthly ministry. Paul argued that a remnant of the nation remains in good standing with God. And it is in light of this that Peter encourages the believing Jews to retain their calling as a "holy nation," with the assumption that they all believed Israel, as a nation, would eventually fully recover.

Of course Peter's audience, Christian Israelites (both Jews and Gentiles), understood their calling as part of the holy nation of the Church.

There is not the slightest hint that they believed that it had anything to do with Israel as a nation.

1 Peter 2:5, and 1 Peter 2:9 which confirms it, are all about the Church, and nothing but the Church.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There you go again! This is clearly a willful and calculated tactic by you to offend and derail.

No, it was a willful and calculated tactic to express a sense of humor. Did you see the smiley face? Of course not--you're too busy dredging up your next complaint.

You are out of your depth here and this debate was won a long time ago. All you are left with in your arsenal is ad hominem and avoidance. Sad!

I hate to break it to you, but you're not that deep yourself.

 

[WPM]

No, it was a willful and calculated tactic to express a sense of humor. Did you see the smiley face? Of course not--you're too busy dredging up your next complaint.



I hate to break it to you, but you're not that deep yourself.

Nobody finds your taunts, insults and ad hominem funny apart from you and those who share your carnal agenda. This is where you are in your element. Sadly, rather than apologizing you justify it.