The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[WPM]

You have it backwards.


a.) The Second Coming of Christ is the First Resurrection whereby the literal 1,000 years of Ruling with Christ begins on earth.

b.) Satan is locked up and a seal placed on him/his location whereby he is unable to exert his deception upon the nations during this literal 1,000 years.

c.) The literal 1,000 years are finished/completed and Satan is lossed "a little while" for the Final Judgment and GWT.

Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in time.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in place.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in order.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in importance.

 

[David in NJ]

Your rejection of Christ's first resurrection is at the core of your error.

Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in time.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in place.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in order.
• Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in importance.

OK

 

[David in NJ]

Typical! Totally avoid the evidence presented. That is the only way your theories continue.

It is dangerous to reject Christ's first resurrection.

Let us not follow the path of the enemy who is the accuser of the Brethren!

 

[WPM]

It is more dangerous to be in agreement with satan = the accuser of the Brethren!

Wow!

What you said is out of order!

 

[David in NJ]

Wow!

Disagree with Premils and this is the type of response you get. What I said was relevant to the subject. What you said is out of order!

Your Post #1,541 is GOOD

THINK & SPEAK Righteously!

 

[WPM]

You are not disagreeing with a pre-mil but you are falsely accusing a Blood Washed Saint of God = very bad....

Your Post #1,541 is GOOD if you remove your opening false statement.

THINK & SPEAK Righteously!

Ok, I just deleted the opening line. I was not trying to offend you. Can you amend your offensive post and also address my arguments above? I can delete my response when you do.

 

[WPM]

Let us not follow the path of the enemy who is the accuser of the Brethren!

I deleted my post you responded to.

 

[David in NJ]

I deleted my post you responded to.

Notice that i said: "Let us", thus including myself in our fellowship together in Christ and in His word.

Which means we are in agreement to not sin against each other before our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[WPM]

Notice that i said: "Let us", thus including myself in our fellowship together in Christ and in His word.

Which means we are in agreement to not sin against each other before our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.

I have no issue with that. I agree. I just wanted to remove my previous comments. It wasn't advancing our discussion.

 

[ewq1938]

57. Does Amillennialism understand the difference between being born again and being resurrected?

Apparently not.

It is very common to see Amillennialists confuse being born again in life with being resurrected from the dead.

They will often cite this:

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

and

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

These are both obviously about being born again during one's lifetime.

They claim these are both synonymous with what John says in Revelation 20:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Obviously Amillennialism ignores that these people were KILLED by being BEHEADED, so when John says they lived and reigned with Christ he is not describing them being born again in life ie: accepting Christ as Messiah and being saved. John is clearly describing what happened to a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian after they have been KILLED. There comes a time at the second coming when a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian will be bodily resurrected.

Amillennialism does not understand the difference between being born again and being bodily resurrected after bodily dying.

 

[David in NJ]

57. Does Amillennialism understand the difference between being born again and being resurrected?

Apparently not.

It is very common to see Amillennialists confuse being born again in life with being resurrected from the dead.

They will often cite this:

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

and

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

These are both obviously about being born again during one's lifetime.

They claim these are both synonymous with what John says in Revelation 20:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Obviously Amillennialism ignores that these people were KILLED by being BEHEADED, so when John says they lived and reigned with Christ he is not describing them being born again in life ie: accepting Christ as Messiah and being saved. John is clearly describing what happened to a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian after they have been KILLED. There comes a time at the second coming when a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian will be bodily resurrected.

Amillennialism does not understand the difference between being born again and being bodily resurrected after bodily dying.

Just throw whatever scripture you like in the 'religion blender' and get your claim going.

 

[Always Believing]

You should have never said that in the first place since I never said I was reigning with Christ in heaven.

True. From now on I will make sure there aren't any fissures in certain prophetic sects like yours.

I believe the souls of those who are physically dead in Christ that John saw are reigning with Christ in heaven.

There is no Bible speaking of anyone reigning with God in heaven, other than the Lamb. His resurrected saints only reign with Him on earth, both this one during His Millennium, and on the new earth, where God will come down out of heaven with New Jerusalem to dwell with man.

He also reigns in the hearts of His believers on earth.

Now, this is true. We have lost our lives to be ruled completely and solely by Christ. And in none of it do we reign or rule over our own lives with Him, much less over nations of the earth. He is Head alone, and we only hold to the Head alone.

If you don't believe that then you are sadly mistaken and clearly don't have any understanding of spiritual things.

I understand the difference between being ruled over spiritually and physically by Christ on earth, and somehow having any rule with Him in our lives or over nations.

You don't understand the difference between being ruled by Him, and claiming rule with Him. But then, since it's only a 'spiritual' doctrine of yours, then I'm sure you don't really mean it when rubber meets the road.

You're not ruling with Him over your life, are you? Of course not, so neither can you be ruling with Him over the lives of others.

I claim that now. What you don't understand is that He not only reigns in heaven but on earth as well because He dwells in the hearts of His believers.

True. And He has power to intervene in lives and nations, if He wishes. But He does not yet exercise His rule on earth in sight of men, as He will come again as King of all nations out of Jerusalem. He will inherit the nations as prophesied, not only by being the Creator of all things, but also by right of conquest over those gathered for war against Him. God's way of warfare is to let all the wicked isolate themselves in one place, and then destroys them all without mercy in one fell swoop. War over with clear victory.

The nations will then truly become the citizens of the King Christ Jesus, to rule and to judge righteously with speedy execution of sentence, as well as honoring them that do good.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

True. From now on I will make sure there aren't any fissures in certain prophetic sects like yours.



There is no Bible speaking of anyone reigning with God in heaven, other than the Lamb. His resurrected saints only reign with Him on earth, both this one during His Millennium, and on the new earth, where God will come down out of heaven with New Jerusalem to dwell with man.

Now, this is true. We have lost our lives to be ruled completely and solely by Christ. And in none of it do we reign or rule over our own lives with Him, much less over nations of the earth. He is Head alone, and we only hold to the Head alone.



I understand the difference between being ruled over spiritually and physically by Christ on earth, and somehow having any rule with Him in our lives or over nations.

You don't understand the difference between being ruled by Him, and claiming rule with Him. But then, since it's only a 'spiritual' doctrine of yours, then I'm sure you don't really mean it when rubber meets the road.

You're not ruling with Him over your life, are you? Of course not, so neither can you be ruling with Him over the lives of others.

I don't define ruling the way you do, so your straw man arguments don't apply to me.

True. And He has power to intervene in lives and nations, if He wishes. But He does not yet exercise His rule on earth in sight of men, as He will come again as King of all nations out of Jerusalem. He will inherit the nations as prophesied, not only by being the Creator of all things, but also by right of conquest over those gathered for war against Him. God's way of warfare is to let all the wicked isolate themselves in one place, and then destroys them all without mercy in one fell swoop. War over with clear victory.

The nations will then truly become the citizens of the King Christ Jesus, to rule and to judge righteously with speedy execution of sentence, as well as honoring them that do good.

Where is any of this taught in scripture? You're making things up. All you have is your own words, but you don't have any of the word of God to back your words up.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

57. Does Amillennialism understand the difference between being born again and being resurrected?

Apparently not.

It is very common to see Amillennialists confuse being born again in life with being resurrected from the dead.

They will often cite this:

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

and

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

These are both obviously about being born again during one's lifetime.

They claim these are both synonymous with what John says in Revelation 20:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

While my particular Amillennial view (that Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection) is not being described here, I don't think that it's a stretch to consider going from being spiritually DEAD in sins to spiritually ALIVE in Christ to be a spiritual resurrection. Isn't that what a resurrection is, going from being dead to alive? When we become spiritually saved there is a sense in which we are spiritually born at that point because we had not previously been spiritually alive. But, it's also true that we are resurrected in a sense when we become saved as well because we go from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

Obviously Amillennialism ignores that these people were KILLED by being BEHEADED, so when John says they lived and reigned with Christ he is not describing them being born again in life ie: accepting Christ as Messiah and being saved. John is clearly describing what happened to a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian after they have been KILLED. There comes a time at the second coming when a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian will be bodily resurrected.

Amillennialism does not understand the difference between being born again and being bodily resurrected after bodily dying.

Why do you have to resort to lying like this? All Amils know the difference and you know it. You just like to lie for some reason. Do you have no conscience about lying? Amils do NOT ignore that text at all, they simply interpret it differently than you do. You assume that the first resurrection can't happen until after people physically die, but that is only your assumption. The text itself does not say that. The text indicates that those who have had part in the first resurrection (at whatever point that is for each person) live and reign with Christ. John saw the souls of the dead in Christ. So, he was saying that the souls of those who who had physically died and had part in the first resurrection live and reign with Christ.

 

[Always Believing]

I don't define ruling the way you do, so your straw man arguments don't apply to me.

True. Your's is spirit-only, not literal, nor real. It's called vain imagination.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Where is any of this taught in scripture? You're making things up. All you have is your own words, but you don't have any of the word of God to back your words up.

Already given all the Scriptures to you before. You don't care about them, so I just repeat the results, because I like perfecting their sense of order.

If you're ruling alongside Christ today, then you haven't yet lost your life for His sake.

The Spirit of grace poured out once again over Jerusalem at Jesus' second coming, as when Jesus was first resurrected, disanulls your world genocide prophecy of another christ.

 

[WPM]

Do you have no conscience about lying?

Which one are you talking about? LOL.

 

[Timtofly]

When we become spiritually saved there is a sense in which we are spiritually born at that point because we had not previously been spiritually alive. But, it's also true that we are resurrected in a sense when we become saved as well because we go from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

In that case conception is a resurrection. You were resurrected from two sources your mom and your dad. Certainly you did not exist prior to that point? You don't exist spiritually any where until you are part of God's family. You really are not dead prior to physical birth, nor dead prior to spiritual birth. But sure call birth a resurrection. It sounds cool and all the other kids are doing it.

Adam did die spiritually and physically, and lost a previous state of existence. In Adam you are in that same dead state, but not prior to any birth. You don't seem to be Adam. Just a copy of a copy of a copy......

In Christ you are part of a spiritual family. You are not Christ either.

Being spiritually dead is symbolic and real, just not you, until birth. If after spiritual birth, you spiritually die, that is when you would be in serious trouble. That is the second death in the LOF. Is it a contradiction of reality for those to literally be dead the second time even before being born or spiritually dying?


The LOF would be real either way. It is just a continuation of sheol, but on a larger scale. None of them ever being spiritually born ever. Only in Adam are they all spiritually dead.

 

[ewq1938]

58. Does the bible promise the Kingdom of God will come to the Earth?


Yes, but Amillennialism usually denies this fact. There are many scriptures that prove this but the easiest way to disprove Amillennialism on this is here:


Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


As you see, the kingdom already existed in the first century on Earth in believers. It has existed in believers on Earth ever since and continues to exist on the Earth in believers to this day.

 

[David in NJ]

58. Does the bible promise the Kingdom of God will come to the Earth?


Yes, but Amillennialism usually denies this fact. There are many scriptures that prove this but the easiest way to disprove Amillennialism on this is here:


Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


As you see, the kingdom already existed in the first century on Earth in believers. It has existed in believers on Earth ever since and continues to exist on the Earth in believers to this day.

The Kingdom of God is the WORD thru whom all things were created,BOTH in Heaven, on earth and everything in between.

The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us = therefore the Kingdom of God was already on earth and HE is about to Return.

 

[Marty fox]

While my particular Amillennial view (that Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection) is not being described here, I don't think that it's a stretch to consider going from being spiritually DEAD in sins to spiritually ALIVE in Christ to be a spiritual resurrection. Isn't that what a resurrection is, going from being dead to alive? When we become spiritually saved there is a sense in which we are spiritually born at that point because we had not previously been spiritually alive. But, it's also true that we are resurrected in a sense when we become saved as well because we go from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.


Why do you have to resort to lying like this? All Amils know the difference and you know it. You just like to lie for some reason. Do you have no conscience about lying? Amils do NOT ignore that text at all, they simply interpret it differently than you do. You assume that the first resurrection can't happen until after people physically die, but that is only your assumption. The text itself does not say that. The text indicates that those who have had part in the first resurrection (at whatever point that is for each person) live and reign with Christ. John saw the souls of the dead in Christ. So, he was saying that the souls of those who who had physically died and had part in the first resurrection live and reign with Christ.

Yes amen and Paul was physically alive and talking to saints who were still physically alive when he said that God made us alive with Christ in the verses below

Ephesians 2
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ-and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

Paul even said above that while he was physically alive he was also spiritually raised up and seated with Jesus in the heavenly realms tying these verses directly to Revelation 20:4

This is the perfect text to support and prove Amil