- Jul 11, 2017
- 1,162
- 392
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So, after coming back from a business trip, and going through a pre-millenial thread I posted, which made a number of amillenialists angry, I think my reasons for believing pre-millenialism over amillenialism or post-millenialism is becoming stronger.
That I see a lack of answers and a lot of jingoism and evasion definitely is a key factor there.
So, some current conclusions, but also soliciting others:
1. 'satan no longer deceives the nations'. It is really difficult to look back a 1000 years, 1500 years, or really anywhere in the current times or past to see any place where we could argue reasonably the Satan has not been deceiving the nations. Far less so for any kind of 1000 year period.
This is true whether you look to the West, or to the East. In history.
2. What Church, exactly, did Jesus reign through? You pretty well have to speaking of the Catholic Church there. Does anyone want to make that argument? I think they would not find that an easy position to maintain. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonialism and violent expansionism, the whole 'Holy Roman Empire', for that matter. Not even to go into all of the severe and basic doctrinal errors they introduced.
For anyone unclear, of the Millennium, it states that 'Jesus reigns for a thousand years with his saints'.
3. Chronology of Revelation. Some passages of Revelation is undeniably not in chronological order. But, arguing that the entire book is not in any sort of chronological order in order to say 'pre-millenialism is impossible' is patently absurd. Most of the book is specifically designed to be chronological in order. Seven seals, seven trumpets, and three woes. It was written like one would expect a fine clockmaker to write such a book.
This chronological order continues with the transition of the 'last trumpet' - the seventh one - to the Millennium. It continues with the binding up of Satan in the Abyss right into the Millennium, which explicitly is stated does not happen until that happens.
That binding its' self does not happening until "Babylon" falls and the "False Prophet" and "Beast" are 'thrown in the Lake of Fire'.
Granted, I have never found an amillenialist doctrine which denies that, at least, some events preceding the Millennium description have not already come to pass. One of these (I will not state which one) is relatively reasonable, but still, very strange.
'God is not a God of chaos, but of order'.
4. The very bad explanations or arguments against pre-millenialism. I would really like to hear some good ones, but I find I only get evasion.
And what ones are given are evasive and really bad standards of proof.
There are many other reasons for it, but these are some of the top ones which come to mind.
That I see a lack of answers and a lot of jingoism and evasion definitely is a key factor there.
So, some current conclusions, but also soliciting others:
1. 'satan no longer deceives the nations'. It is really difficult to look back a 1000 years, 1500 years, or really anywhere in the current times or past to see any place where we could argue reasonably the Satan has not been deceiving the nations. Far less so for any kind of 1000 year period.
This is true whether you look to the West, or to the East. In history.
2. What Church, exactly, did Jesus reign through? You pretty well have to speaking of the Catholic Church there. Does anyone want to make that argument? I think they would not find that an easy position to maintain. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonialism and violent expansionism, the whole 'Holy Roman Empire', for that matter. Not even to go into all of the severe and basic doctrinal errors they introduced.
For anyone unclear, of the Millennium, it states that 'Jesus reigns for a thousand years with his saints'.
3. Chronology of Revelation. Some passages of Revelation is undeniably not in chronological order. But, arguing that the entire book is not in any sort of chronological order in order to say 'pre-millenialism is impossible' is patently absurd. Most of the book is specifically designed to be chronological in order. Seven seals, seven trumpets, and three woes. It was written like one would expect a fine clockmaker to write such a book.
This chronological order continues with the transition of the 'last trumpet' - the seventh one - to the Millennium. It continues with the binding up of Satan in the Abyss right into the Millennium, which explicitly is stated does not happen until that happens.
That binding its' self does not happening until "Babylon" falls and the "False Prophet" and "Beast" are 'thrown in the Lake of Fire'.
Granted, I have never found an amillenialist doctrine which denies that, at least, some events preceding the Millennium description have not already come to pass. One of these (I will not state which one) is relatively reasonable, but still, very strange.
'God is not a God of chaos, but of order'.
4. The very bad explanations or arguments against pre-millenialism. I would really like to hear some good ones, but I find I only get evasion.
And what ones are given are evasive and really bad standards of proof.
There are many other reasons for it, but these are some of the top ones which come to mind.