Who are the People in Revelation?

[Spiritual Jew]

Hold the bus. I have an interview Saturday a musical performance Sunday and have to prepare. I'll get back to you hopefully by Monday. I do want to address several issues, so it will be a lengthy one. Like all amills your tendency to allegorize is outlandish, but I'll reserve what I have to say for when I get a chance.

That false claim is tiresome. Amill is primarily based on clear, straightforward scriptures and properly differentiates between literal and figurative text, unlike Premill. There is clear scripture which teaches Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, Rev 1:5-6, Col 1:12-13, etc.). There is clear scripture which teaches that all of the dead will be resurrected at the same hour (John 5:28-29) and that all people will be judged at the same time (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 25:31-46). No need to allegorize those scriptures. Premills either ignore them or twist them to fit their doctrine. There is clear scripture which indicates that Jesus will destroy all unbelievers when He returns (Matt 24:35-39, 1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12). Despite that, Premills try to claim that some unbelievers will survive. Amills are the ones whose doctrine is based on clear, straightforward scrpitures, not Premill. Premill does not know how to differentiate between literal and figurative text.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Covenant Theology would agree so far...



If this were a game show, that's where the buzzer would say BBBZZZZZZTTT!

The red lights on the Covenant Theology dashboard start lighting up right there!

You have just torn apart the Covenant Theologians very definition of the church - and even parts of the gospel. Not that the gospel is destroyed - there are many people here that also have that kind of faulty futurist reading of the OT who I would say are Christians themselves. But that it starts to confuse and attack how big the gospel of Jesus is.


Yet this article I referred to originally was talking about Covenant Theology. It did not really unpack that much about how that impacts our understanding of the Israel and the church as the ONE ecclesia of God. This then has flow on effects for eschatology, in that if a student sees how vast the gospel fulfilments to Israel really are - the person is not left wondering when certain OT prophesies are going to be fulfilled. They all have their YES in Christ! This paragraph was mainly about the origins of CT, not Amil eschatology.

The formulation of covenant theology is the work of the 16th and 17th century Calvinistic Reformation. By the middle of the 1500s Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin and others had articulated fundamental aspects of covenant theology in response both to medieval Roman Catholic and contemporary Anabaptist interpretative errors, especially pertaining to the relation of the Old and New Testaments, deliberately citing the church fathers as informing their views and confirming the importance of the covenants in their exposition of redemptive history. Covenant theology became influential in all the various branches of Reformed evangelical Protestantism (Presbyterian, Continental Reformed, Anglican, Congregationalist, Independent, and Baptist).​

Covenant Theology

Covenant theology is an approach to biblical interpretation and for understanding the divine-human relationship relying upon the covenants.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

But you're right in that I'm not a professional theologian - and I could not really tell you what percentage of Reformation groups held exactly what eschatology - just that Amil was up there. Do you have any degrees in theology?



In about 100 words - what is it? I might know it by another name - given I'm in Australia. (We call Inaugurated Theology "Eschatological Tension" and I'm dumping that name because I just found out Alister McGrath uses Inaugurated. If it's good enough for Al - it's good enough for me. He's a bit of a hero of mine - the next CS Lewis in fact - and has debated Richard Dawkins.) I had a look at the about page and the guy seems to be advocating some kind of return to following the law? Remember - I'm meant to be repairing a rusty shed and finding a new job. I'll probably bookmark this conversation at some time Jerry and have to leave it for a few months.


Yeah - my emotions get the better of me and so I'm kind of erratic in my posting style. I was so worked up about Covenant Theology I forgot the article I really needed to link to needed to have reference to the church to explain how CT related to your 2 OP's.



Come on Jerry!
What does 'not only in this world' mean?

You were so selective in the way you quickly carved out chunks of Ephesians to see what you wanted to see - you basically butchered that verse! You ran from the bits you didn't like.

Ephesians 1:20.
"That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."


Seated = past tense. Already done. It results in him being far above authorities, powers, and dominions now. Which is totally consistent with the Amillennial 'spiritualising' of certain conflicts with the evil forces in this world.

Placed = past tense. God has placed all those powers under Jesus feet. It already happened!

Col 2 also says Jesus is the HEAD over every power and authority and has disarmed them as well! Now. Not in some hypothetical in-between heaven age. Indeed - arguing Jesus is NOT right now the head over every spiritual power and authority threatens our understanding of our very salvation from those spiritual powers - and would make us ask (if we understand such things - many don't!) whether or not they still have a claim on us!

Your reading of 1 Cor 15:25 not only contradicts 1 Cor 15:27 - but Ephesians 1 and Col 2 above - and threatens an important part of the gospel itself!

Does 27 NOT say the past tense words "HAS put everything under his feet?"
Does Col 2 not say Jesus is right now head over all these powers?
Does Eph 1 not say he is far above them all, and they are under his feet, and he is above them all - for the church?

1 Cor 15
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


That is - Jesus must reign now - until all his enemies are put under his feet on this earth when he returns! That is all this chunk of 1 Cor 15 explains! The verses I refer to above are talking about the spiritual aspects of this - in that the spiritual tyranny does not extend all the way through the heavenly realms in such a manner that people have no access to God himself! But rather - in our spiritual battle against the devil here and now - we know that Christ is already seated on high, has already put everything under his feet in the heavenly realms, has already blessed the church with this knowledge and power that he has over everything - and so we must march on! We must preach. We must fulfil the Great Commission because Jesus ALREADY has all power and authority and reigns from on high! (Rev 2).

Then the second he returns it's Judgement Day - and all pretensions to other spiritual powers and authorities are destroyed - and humanity can finally reign over this renewed creation as the image of God in a servant, obedient, spirit filled manner that God intended. That's what I wish the American church would focus on!

But instead - coming in here every 6 months as I do - out of sheer morbid curiosity - I find people obsessively pushing various futurist views.

And what happens when they do not pan out? Their interpretation of 'prophecies' from the OT are not fulfilled - and it becomes another source of amusement from a scoffing, sceptical world. Futurists have not understood that Covenant Theology actually is how the NT presents the promises in the OT to Israel - and the one olive tree inherits and fulfils all those promises in Inaugurated Theology - in the now and not yet of Christ's reign.




Um - I really hope "Two-house" does not mean what I think it means!?

Jeremiah is referring to Jesus and the church here mate - the one olive tree of Romans. Not two kingdoms - one!


But you can't answer why other verses say Jesus destroys the man of lawlessness at his parousia - the moment he returns - which of course contradicts Rev 20 - which would have him destroy the false prophet at the end of 1000 years.

To begin, post and amill are the result of the influence of the tares in the Church. It’s the tares’ duty to gaslight the Church into believing Christ’s kingdom is one in which ministers in the Church, like the episcopalian bishop Rev. Mariann Budde, can give the woke gospel to president Trump in which men can menstruate and children can choose their gender. Point is, the tares can gaslight all they want but they are not going to deceive the elect forever that Satan is bound, when the NT affirms he has been cast down to the earth to persecute the woman/church in this age, and plant his tares in the church according to the NT (Matt 13:38; Cor 5:5, 7:5; 2 Cor 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 1 Peter 5:8; Rev 12:12-13).

Those tares aren’t going to gaslight the elect forever that amill was the faith that was once delivered, considering that the ante Nicene’s were predominately premillennialists, or Chiliast (as they were branded). Men like Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 130 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 122 – c. 202 AD), and Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 – c. AD 165) all taught the millennium as a time when God would fulfill His promises to the patriarchs, particularly concerning the inheritance of the land and the restoration of Israel. In the case of Papias, there is extant evidence through the writings of Irenaeus that Papias was a disciple of John the Revelator, which destroys post and amill. Obviously, the faith that was once delivered was Premillennialism.

Those tares aren’t going to gaslight the elect forever with the propaganda that the Reformation spawned the idea of the figurative 1000 years, which the informed elect know it was Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253) who welcomed such Gnosticism into the Church, with its relegation of the OT to an inferior position besides the New. The sound thinking elect know that the Old and New Testaments complement each other and bear equal footing in doctrines such as eschatology. After all it was Paul that said of the Old and New Testaments,

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17​

As I said, Covenantalism is not inimical to Premillennialism, insomuch as the preponderance of the Reformers and Puritans were historicists, many of whom adhered to the resurgence of Premillennialism at that time through men like Joseph Mede (1586 – 1639). The 16th through 19th century historicists were men like Martin Luther, Charles Wesley, Adam Clarke, and Isaac Newton. According to a member of the “Puritan Board,”

The Reformers and Puritans were overwhelmingly historicists. Check out the helpful introduction in EB Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae on the plan of the book… The historicist does utilize the theological significance of biblical imagery (as can be seen in their commentaries). One key difference, in my opinion is that the idealist position makes Revelation unlike other biblical prophecy. Think of Daniel 2 and the statue there. Of course it is interpreted chronologically and historically. Try applying an idealist approach to Daniel 2 and we would all agree that it is inappropriate. Prophecy has actual historical fulfilment that is important to the nature of it. Idealism vs Historicism​

The tares aren’t going to continuously deceive the elect when they find out that amill supplanted Premillennialism when the Roman emperors took control of the counsels of the Church. The Romans emperors hated the interpretation by the Chiliasts and suppressed the faith that was once delivered because it held Rome as the fourth beast in Daniel that comes to an end before Christ returns. It wasn’t until Augustine (354-540) that amill became firmly established by the beast system of the papacy. The greater number of the reforms championed historicism that saw the papacy as the antichrist, which included Calvin,

Calvin develops his argument that the Pope is the Antichrist (Institutes IV,7,25). The historical Pope that Calvin had in view was Paul III (1534-1549) but his critique never focuses on his person, but rather on the Papal institution. Leonardo De Chirico, John Calvin and the Papacy, 98. John Calvin and the Papacy - Vatican Files​

Calvin failed to grasp such a notion reveals that the little horn in Daniel has to rise out of the fallen Roman empire, which wasn’t lost on Martin Luther and a great number of the reformers,

All though his Daniel Introduction of 1529 represents Luther's first extensive application of the prophecies of Daniel, he had as early as 1521 interpreted Dan 8:23-25 as pointing to the Pope as the antichrist, as well as applying the little horn in Dan 7 to the papacy. Winfried Vogel, The Eschatological Theology of Martin Luther, Part I: Luther's Basic Concepts, https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1987-2/1987-2-03.pdf​

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Getting back to the folly that idealism fails to treat Revelation like Daniel, that prophecy has actual historical fulfillment that’s important to its nature, even Riddlebarger treats Daniel as chronological and historical,

I’m thinking here of the visions of four great empires found in Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a metallic statue interpreted by Daniel), and Daniel 7 (a vision given to Daniel of four great and mysterious beasts). The four metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s statue and the four beasts in Daniel’s vision predict the rise of the four great empires of the ancient near-eastern world: the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. As will see shortly, these prior visions provide the context for the vision of the seventy weeks–a context often overlooked by those who see the prophecy as focusing on the time of the end, instead of upon the dawn of the messianic age. The Jewish exiles are about to return home and rebuild the city and temple. But a greater exile remains. This is the exile of the sinful and rebellious human race from the presence of YHWH. It too will come to an end after “seventy weeks.” Kim Riddlebarger, “Seventy Weeks” Daniel 9:20-27 (An Exposition of the Book of Daniel–Part Seventeen) “Seventy Weeks” Daniel 9:20-27 (An Exposition of the Book of Daniel–Part Seventeen) — The Riddleblog​

There is no termination of an exile when Christ starts his ministry on the seventieth week according to Daniel 9. Riddlebarger is grossly mistaken. In stark contrast it’s the end of the Babylonian exile that starts the prophecies concerning the seventieth week. The passage speaks nothing about ending any exile at Christ’s first advent. History shows that most of the Jews joined the descendants of the Northern kingdom in exile. Again, in contrast, Christ prophecies the sowing of the good seed in Matthew 13. Sowing is connected to exile, gathering is connected to restoring, for those tares out there. This sowing of remnant of Israel was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:2, 27-28, Ezekiel 34:17–31, Hosea 2:14– 23, Amos 9:9–10, Micah 5:7-8, and Zechariah 10:7–9. The prophecy of the sowing of the good seed in this age is an exile by definition, albeit one in which Israel finds grace in the wilderness (Jeremiah 31:2, Ezekiel 34:17–31, Hosea 2:14– 23, Amos 9:9–10, and Zechariah 10:7–9). There is no end of any exile mentioned in the NT at Christ’s first advent. The NT affirms the end of the exile comes when the good seeds are “gathered” into the barn when Christ returns, in agreement with the OT prophecies in Psalm 106:47, Micah 2:12, Zephaniah 3:20, Isaiah 27:12, Isaiah 56:8, Jeremiah 29:14, Isaiah 11:11-13 and a host of other passages.

the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. Matthew 13:39​

This is a great place to cite another amill, Vern S. Poythress. Poythress argues the meaning of the words in prophecy must include the grammatical-historical interpretation,

In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything. Such comparison, though it should not undermine or contradict grammatical-historical interpretation, goes beyond its bounds. It takes account of information not available in the original historical and cultural context. Hence grammatical-historical interpretation is not enough. It is not all there is to interpretation. True, grammatical-historical interpretation exercises a vital role in bringing controls and refinements to our understanding of particular texts. But we must also undertake to relate those texts forward to further revelation that they anticipate and prepare for. Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1994), 116.​

In arguing for the amill view, Poythress prefaces his statement above with the observation the NT may diminish “the most prosaic biological sense” Israel is interpreted, but that it’s still error to “try” and do away with this sense altogether, insomuch as it “undermines or contradicts the grammatical-historical interpretation.”

So, when amills, such as yourself and spiritual jew, maintain that Jeremiah 23:3-6 refers to “Jesus and the church” that’s true, but it doesn’t refer to this age but the one to come. We can’t have Jeremiah refer to our time because Israel is scattered in this age in fulfillment of Christ’s parable of the sowing of the good seeds, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:2, 27-28, Ezekiel 34:17–31, Hosea 2:14– 23, Amos 9:9–10, Micah 5:7-8, and Zechariah 10:7–9. Jeremiah represents the age to come when the good seeds are gathered into the barn in fulfillment of Psalm 106:47, Micah 2:12, Zephaniah 3:20, Isaiah 27:12, Isaiah 56:8, Jeremiah 29:14, Isaiah 11:11-13 and a host of other passages. Any interpretation Jeremiah is referring to this age is from the influence of the tares in the Church. Poythress acknowledgment of the significance of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic affirms Premillennialism and freedom from the tares, coming out of Babylon.

So, while I’m well familiar with the history of amill and its nature, it’s evident your bereft of any acquaintance with historicism and the history of the Reformation. For that matter, you are bereft of any substantive knowledge of how amill began and the history of Chiliasm that preceded it. And you're bereft on how one goes about debating also. Ignoring the challenges to amill in my OP and merely parroting the amill dogma and then expecting me to address your every claim isn’t going to happen. If you can’t address my challenges then I’m not going to address your dogma with any great enthusiasm, but merely to point out that amill can’t surmount that 1 Corinthians 15 demolishes amill, insomuch as Christ must reign before death is destroyed, and the NT maintains Christ continues to reign when he returns (Matthew 19:28, 24:46-47; Luke 12:35-44, 19:11-27; John 14:2-3; Revelation 2:25-26, 3:21). Even you admit my response unwittingly with your “not yet” inconsistency. The OT must be fulfilled in the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, as the parables weren’t made up but were ordained outcomes given to the prophets to inform all of the saints,

And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jeremiah 23:3-6​

As I stated, the parable of the wheat and tares has its origin in the OT prophecies that Christ would be rejected, stricken and the sheep scattered, which you never surmounted or even addressed. All you had to offer is the typical amill dogma that I over literalize and neglect the NT. Nevertheless, the OT evidence that Christ came to punish the shepherds and scatter the sheep (Zechariah 13:7) vindicates premillennialism because we can’t have Christ come to establish his kingdom when the intent was to scatter the sheep and gather the wheat into the barn at his return, mixing metaphors. As Jeremiah prophesied above, the intent was to establish the kingdom of Christ when he gathers the sheep at his return and reigns in fulfillment of Matthew 19:28, 24:46-47; Luke 12:35-44, 19:11-27; John 14:2-3; and Revelation 2:25-26, 3:21. I’m not over literalizing; you’re over allegorizing. You simply can’t surmount the NT evidence that Christ returns to rule in power and authority with the saints, which means he doesn’t return to abolish power and authority to enter eternity, confirming premillennialism.

 

[eclipsenow]

To begin, post and amill are the result of the influence of the tares in the Church. It’s the tares’ duty to gaslight the Church into believing Christ’s kingdom is one in which ministers in the Church, like the episcopalian bishop Rev. Mariann Budde, can give the woke gospel to president Trump in which men can menstruate and children can choose their gender. Point is, the tares can gaslight all they want but they are not going to deceive the elect forever that Satan is bound, when the NT affirms he has been cast down to the earth to persecute the woman/church in this age, and plant his tares in the church according to the NT (Matt 13:38; Cor 5:5, 7:5; 2 Cor 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 1 Peter 5:8; Rev 12:12-13).

Well - there's the whole church and state conversation that somehow got interwoven into it there - but that's another conversation in my mind.

Whatever particular points we want to discuss - from certain backsliding or even counterfeit pastors through to North Korean governments that actively persecute the church - we agree Satan is still making life here and now, on this earth, difficult! It's a spiritual war. I never said otherwise.

Those tares aren’t going to gaslight the elect forever that amill was the faith that was once delivered, considering that the ante Nicene’s were predominately premillennialists, or Chiliast (as they were branded). Men like Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 130 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 122 – c. 202 AD), and Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 – c. AD 165) all taught the millennium as a time when God would fulfill His promises to the patriarchs, particularly concerning the inheritance of the land and the restoration of Israel. In the case of Papias, there is extant evidence through the writings of Irenaeus that Papias was a disciple of John the Revelator, which destroys post and amill. Obviously, the faith that was once delivered was Premillennialism.

Except that the NT destroys Premil. But please do continue with the bombastic terminology - it won't possibly exacerbate the tone of debate here! (It's like you have a big kick drum you like to THUMP every second paragraph to ram home your point!)

Those tares aren’t going to gaslight the elect forever

Are you now trying to subliminally cast the message that Amils are not elect?

with the propaganda that the Reformation spawned the idea of the figurative 1000 years, which the informed elect know it was Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253) who welcomed such Gnosticism into the Church, with its relegation of the OT to an inferior position besides the New.

Um - so the bible doesn't use the term 1000 figuratively? You are such a dear! Didn't we just agree that it obviously does only a few pages back?

1. USE OF 1000 in the Bible.​

In the bible, 1000 tends to get used literally and numerically to count real things or people, like the number of men in a battle. It's very practical and statistical. But the moment the Hebrew authors use 1000 in a theological context, something interesting happens. Investigate the following theological statements about God and nature, God and his people, or even God and time. You'll find that reading 1000 literally can actually result in full blown, covenant-destroying, grace-destroying heresy!

Psalm 50 "I bring no charges against you concerning your sacrifices or concerning your burnt offerings, which are ever before me. I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills."

= Is the literal futurist really going to argue that God only owns a thousand hills? What about the other million or so on Earth?

Deuteronomy 1:11 - "11 May the Lord, the God of your ancestors, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!"

= God was only going to grow his people a thousand times - from the literal number of people standing before Moses that day? What happened to more than the stars in the sky and grains of sand on a beach?

Psalm 91:7 - "A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you."

= Is it a thousand or ten-thousand? Is it a gazillion or ten gazillion?

Isaiah 60:22 - "The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation."

= You mean there are limits on God's kingdom - it will ONLY grow 1000 times in size from Isaiah's lifetime?

Judges 15:16 - "Then Samson said, “With a donkey’s jawbone I have made donkeys of them. With a donkey’s jawbone I have killed a thousand men.”

= I love this one - as I've been a soldier. The image of a Sampson having a bookkeeper counting his kills is just hilarious. "997, 998, 999, 1000 - that's it Sampson! You're done for the day! Stand down Sampson - I'm writing this down!"

Job 9:3 - "Though they wished to dispute with him, they could not answer him one time out of a thousand."

= Could Job's 'friends' actually answer his suffering 1 time in a thousand, or is the emphasis of this story that they had NO answers - only God had the authority to answer Job (and decided not to tell Job the real reason anyway. Job was just to trust God anyway, without an answer!)

The subject of GOD and TIME is always symbolic:​

Deuteronomy 7:9 - "Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments."

= Is the literal futurist really bold enough to insist God is only faithful for a thousand generations? A generation was 40 years - so in 40,000 years God is unfaithful!!!???

Psalm 105:8 - "He remembers his covenant FOREVER, the promise he made, for a THOUSAND generations"

= Well, which is it? Forever, or a thousand generations / 40,000 years? There is a BIG difference between 40,000 years and forever! (The Australian First Nations have already been here over 60,000 years! If God had made a covenant with them - would it have already 'run out'? Such a thought is a blasphemy! So 1000 seems to mean "a really unimaginably big number - maybe even forever!")

Psalms 84:10 - "Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked."

= Is one day with God’s people better than 1000 literal days or 2.7 years, or is this a qualitative assessment of how it is better to invest your time with God? Is this verse actually equating ANY period of time with the wicked as beneficial to you?

2. Historical claims of 1000 as figurative.​

Do you have actual source quotes from what Origen was saying about the millennium - because my understanding is the better textual analysis comes from a bit later than that.

The following definition of Amillennialism covers some of the history - from the 5 sola’s website (link below). —-

DISTINCTIVE FEATURES AND EMPHASIS​

a. The "a" millennial (literally meaning "no" millennium) position is the eschatological view of historic Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Christianity. It would be my educated guess that about two-thirds of the Christian family espouse an amillennial eschatology. The amillennial position is as well the position of the vast majority of Reformed and Lutheran theologians. The position portrayed in these lectures is the Reformed understanding of amillennialism, which is better understood as "present" millennialism [or "realized" millennialism], since Reformed eschatology argues for a real, present, though "invisible" non-spatial millennium.​

b. Amillennialists insist that the promises made to national Israel, David and Abraham, in the OT are fulfilled by Christ and the Church during this age, which is the millennium, that is the entire period of time between the two advents of our Lord. The "thousand years" are therefore symbolic of the entire inter-advental age. Satan is bound by Christ's victory over him and the establishment of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel, and Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations, through the presence of Christ is reigning in heaven during this period with the martyrs who come out of the great tribulation. At the end of the millennial age, Christ returns in judgement of all men. The general resurrection occurs, final judgement takes place for all men and women, and a new Heaven and Earth are established.​

C. In most forms of amillennialism, immediately before the return of Christ, Satan is unbound, there is a great apostasy, and a time of unprecedented satanically inspired evil. This last Satanic gasp and subsequent rebellious activity is destroyed by our Lord at his return.​

PROPONENTS:​

a. Amillennialism has always been the majority position of the Christian family. It was first articulated by St. Augustine, and has been given a distinctive Reformed emphasis through the work of Geerhardus Vos (the "Biblical-Theological" approach). As the "dispensational" movement captured the hearts and minds of conservative American Evangelicals, amillennialism was equated with "liberalism" or Roman Catholicism. The supposed interpreting prophecy "spiritually" or "not-literally" has lead to the rejection of amillennialism by many. In addition, amillennialism suffered greatly from the failure of Reformed and Luthern writers to defend the position against the likes of Dave Hunt, Chuck Missler and Hal Lindsey, who has labeled the position as "demonic and heretical," and the root of modern anti-semitism. b. Leading contemporary "amill" theologians would include popular writers such as J. I. Packer, Mike Horton, [the late] Calvin seminary professor, Anthony Hoekema, and RC Sproul. In addition, all of the Reformers, as well as the Reformed and Lutheran confessional traditions, as a whole, have been amillennial.​

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The most important and useful amillennial work is the excellent book by Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982). Also helpful are: Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Phillipsburg: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947); Arthur Lewis, The Dark Side of the Millennium (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980); William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (PhilIipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1966); William E. Cox, Biblical Studies in Final Things (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1966).​

Eschatology Chart​

​

​

​

 

[Spiritual Jew]

To begin, post and amill are the result of the influence of the tares in the Church. It’s the tares’ duty to gaslight the Church into believing Christ’s kingdom is one in which ministers in the Church, like the episcopalian bishop Rev. Mariann Budde, can give the woke gospel to president Trump in which men can menstruate and children can choose their gender. Point is, the tares can gaslight all they want but they are not going to deceive the elect forever that Satan is bound, when the NT affirms he has been cast down to the earth to persecute the woman/church in this age, and plant his tares in the church according to the NT (Matt 13:38; Cor 5:5, 7:5; 2 Cor 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 1 Peter 5:8; Rev 12:12-13).

Those tares aren’t going to gaslight the elect forever that amill was the faith that was once delivered, considering that the ante Nicene’s were predominately premillennialists, or Chiliast (as they were branded). Men like Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 130 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 122 – c. 202 AD), and Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 – c. AD 165) all taught the millennium as a time when God would fulfill His promises to the patriarchs, particularly concerning the inheritance of the land and the restoration of Israel. In the case of Papias, there is extant evidence through the writings of Irenaeus that Papias was a disciple of John the Revelator, which destroys post and amill. Obviously, the faith that was once delivered was Premillennialism.

You are so full of hot air. What a joke. In his "Dialogue with Trypho", Justin Martyr himself said this in relation to his premillennial view: "I and many others are of this opinion, and believe that such will take place ... but, on the other hand, many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”. To act as if premil was the predominant belief of the early church is a lie that many premils like yourself like to tell.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So, while I’m well familiar with the history of amill and its nature, it’s evident your bereft of any acquaintance with historicism and the history of the Reformation. For that matter, you are bereft of any substantive knowledge of how amill began and the history of Chiliasm that preceded it. And you're bereft on how one goes about debating also. Ignoring the challenges to amill in my OP and merely parroting the amill dogma and then expecting me to address your every claim isn’t going to happen. If you can’t address my challenges then I’m not going to address your dogma with any great enthusiasm, but merely to point out that amill can’t surmount that 1 Corinthians 15 demolishes amill, insomuch as Christ must reign before death is destroyed, and the NT maintains Christ continues to reign when he returns (Matthew 19:28, 24:46-47; Luke 12:35-44, 19:11-27; John 14:2-3; Revelation 2:25-26, 3:21).

Amils don't deny that Christ must reign before death is destroyed. But, what you deny, despite scripture teaching it explicitly, is that Christ reigns now and has been reigning since His resurrection.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[eclipsenow]

Amils don't deny that Christ must reign before death is destroyed. But, what you deny, despite scripture teaching it explicitly, is that Christ reigns now and has been reigning since His resurrection.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I'm guessing the standard Premil reply would be all about how Satan is still at work now, and so the reign of the church cannot be now.

But that's kind of twisting the subject to when and how we reign - and not addressing the inescapable reality of Jesus reigning right now. Have you read NT Wright on this? I've not read his book "Jesus and the Powers" but apparently he makes the point somewhere that the first century world was terrified of an all powerful tyrannical spiritual force having all authority in the spiritual world and on the earth. If that was actually the case (and I have not read about this thoroughly enough) then it gives an interesting context to the New Testament claims about Jesus authority in heaven. We sort of see that as a matter of fact - of plain but less urgent theology. But to the first century it's like knowing this oppressive weight of spiritual doom has been lifted. Sure - this world and the temptations and persecutions in it are bad enough. But at least they had access to Jesus - who reigned over everything in the spiritual world! Who kept order, and was in charge, and guaranteed their access to God!

In the next chapter in Ephesians 2, we read that it's almost like our salvation depends on being already included in that reign of Christ over everything. We are already seated there. But not yet. In the coming ages we will see this heavenly citizenship status expressed in reality.

Also - that is the first time I have noticed 'the coming ages' - plural. What do you make of that? In almost every other NT verse I read it's this age, or the next age. This life with marriage, kids, temptation and sin and sickness and death - and eternity with no human marriage because we now have the Lord, we live forever (so there's no need for new children), there's no temptation, every tear is wiped away and we live forever with God.

So 'ages'? Is it the sense of age after age after age in eternity?

Ephesians 2.
“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, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm guessing the standard Premil reply would be all about how Satan is still at work now, and so the reign of the church cannot be now.

But that's kind of twisting the subject to when and how we reign - and not addressing the inescapable reality of Jesus reigning right now. Have you read NT Wright on this? I've not read his book "Jesus and the Powers" but apparently he makes the point somewhere that the first century world was terrified of an all powerful tyrannical spiritual force having all authority in the spiritual world and on the earth. If that was actually the case (and I have not read about this thoroughly enough) then it gives an interesting context to the New Testament claims about Jesus authority in heaven. We sort of see that as a matter of fact - of plain but less urgent theology. But to the first century it's like knowing this oppressive weight of spiritual doom has been lifted. Sure - this world and the temptations and persecutions in it are bad enough. But at least they had access to Jesus - who reigned over everything in the spiritual world! Who kept order, and was in charge, and guaranteed their access to God!

In the next chapter in Ephesians 2, we read that it's almost like our salvation depends on being already included in that reign of Christ over everything. We are already seated there. But not yet. In the coming ages we will see this heavenly citizenship status expressed in reality.

Also - that is the first time I have noticed 'the coming ages' - plural. What do you make of that? In almost every other NT verse I read it's this age, or the next age. This life with marriage, kids, temptation and sin and sickness and death - and eternity with no human marriage because we now have the Lord, we live forever (so there's no need for new children), there's no temptation, every tear is wiped away and we live forever with God.

So 'ages'? Is it the sense of age after age after age in eternity?

Ephesians 2.
“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, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

I think the reference to coming ages is similar to a reference to coming generations in Ephesians 2:7, so the word "aion" is used in a different context there than when it is used to either refer to this present, temporary age of marriage, sin, death, etc. or to the eternal age to come when there is no marriage, sin, death, etc.