One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[keras]

Whatever Barnabas, Clement, or any of the ECF's, or any Bible scholars said was and is their opinion. Hinging a doctrine on any of them is a bad mistake.
Our only guide is what the Bible prophets and Apostles said.

Ancient of Days had not come, and judgment was not yet given to the saints of the Most High, and the time had not come when the saints received the kingdom?

Do you believe these things have come?
If so, you not only deny scripture, but the present reality.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Whatever Barnabas, Clement, or any of the ECF's, or any Bible scholars said was and is their opinion. Hinging a doctrine on any of them is a bad mistake.
Our only guide is what the Bible prophets and Apostles said.

I agree.

Do you believe these things have come?
If so, you not only deny scripture, but the present reality.

Daniel 7:13-14 says, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

When most people read this reference to the Son of Man coming with clouds they immediately assume that it relates to the second coming of the Lord. However, if they would carefully examine the wording of the passage and particularly the import of the reading, they would find that it makes absolutely no mention to Christ coming to earth in the clouds, but rather, it is speaking of Christ rising into the presence of His Father – the Ancient of Days – to receive His reward. The narrative expressly says, “the Son of man … came to the Ancient of days.” This glorious event occurred after the cross when He triumphantly entered into the portals of heaven in a cloud to sit at the right hand of majesty on high.

Premillennialists commonly apply this reading to the second coming, however, a close study of this reading shows that it relates specifically to the Lord’s ascension. The question that emanates from here is: where, in this vision, does the son of man (Christ) go? Is it to the earth or is it to His Father? Of course the passage answers this for us; “the Son of man … came to the Ancient of days.” The Son of Man is shown here not to be coming from the Ancient of Days, but rather going to Him in the clouds. Christ is coming to the Father. For what purpose? Christ ascended in the clouds to the Father to receive His coronation. He came to be given dominion, glory and a kingdom. Christ is therefore not coming from heaven to earth in this passage, but coming from earth to heaven.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Whatever Barnabas, Clement, or any of the ECF's, or any Bible scholars said was and is their opinion. Hinging a doctrine on any of them is a bad mistake.
Our only guide is what the Bible prophets and Apostles said.

Do you believe these things have come?
If so, you not only deny scripture, but the present reality.

Daniel 7:21-22: “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”

Amillennialists normally relate Daniel 7:21-22 to the persecution of the Roman Empire on the early church and the widespread martyrdom that attended that. They correlate that with Revelation 20 and the depicted victory that marks those who die in Christ during this current era. Amillennialists believe Revelation 20 starts at the first resurrection and shows an ongoing period of victory for the saints over sin, death, the beast and Satan. The saints that survived this awful persecution continued to reign in supernatural power as the kingdom of God invaded the nations. The Gospel could not be stopped. The fire of Revival spread from nation to nation as the Church implemented the great commission. Despite the unprecedented opposition, the heathen Gentile world began to embrace the truth in their millions. As kings and priests the Church carried authority. Revelation 20 depicts even the dead in Christ reign in power and victory. They are shown to possess the kingdom of God and exercise judgement over the kingdom of darkness.

The word "came" in Daniel 7:22 meta' (Aramaic) (met-aw'); or metah (Aramaic) (met-aw') means to arrive, extend or happen. There is nothing in its usage or context that require a literal presence. Words can be used for a literal or spiritual manifestation of God.

 

[Jamdoc]

It will never happen. When He comes He will remove all wickedness and corruption. No unglorified mortal will survive His return to corrupt the new earth.

plain reading of Revelation 20 says otherwise.
Revelation 6:12-17 shows that they recognize the wrath of God is come for them, and even recognize the sign in the sky as being Jesus, and... other parts of the wrath of God in Revelation 9, and Revelation 16.... has people recognizing that God is bringing these calamities on them, and they curse God.

Kind of defeats your idea that just seeing Jesus in glory makes everyone love Him.

 

[sovereigngrace]

plain reading of Revelation 20 says otherwise.
Revelation 6:12-17 shows that they recognize the wrath of God is come for them, and even recognize the sign in the sky as being Jesus, and... other parts of the wrath of God in Revelation 9, and Revelation 16.... has people recognizing that God is bringing these calamities on them, and they curse God.

Kind of defeats your idea that just seeing Jesus in glory makes everyone love Him.

This is a major difference between Premillennialism and Amillennialism: Unfortunately, you seem to analyse every passage in Holy Writ through the lens of your mistaken understanding of Revelation 20. Amillennialism interprets Revelation 20 through the lens of the rest of Scripture. This gives us a proper sense of this highly debated passage in the most obscure setting in Scripture.

The disturbing mantra of Premil is: "what saith Rev 20." However, Romans 4:3 instructs us, "For what saith the Scripture?"

We build Scripture upon Scripture in order to piece God’s truth together. We embrace the full gamut of Holy Writ. We do not limit our understanding of a future time-line to one chapter or one book. That would be insane.

 

[Timtofly]

Where is this in the Word of God? It is not enough for you to keep presenting your opinions as facts.

Your opinions are not in the Word of God. That is what I keep saying. Why do you think your opinions are in Revelation 20?

You come up with this list of opinions and not one of them is in God's Word. Not sure why you ask people to find your opinions in Scripture.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Double post

 

[Jamdoc]

This is a major difference between Premillennialism and Amillennialism: you analyse every passage in Holy Writ through the lens of your mistaken understanding of Revelation 20. Amillennialism interprets Revelation 20 through the lens of the rest of Scripture. This gives us a proper sense of this highly debated passage in the most obscure setting in Scripture.

The disturbing mantra of Premil is: "what saith Rev 20." However, Romans 4:3 instructs us, "For what saith the Scripture?"

We build Scripture upon Scripture in order to piece God’s truth together. We embrace the full gamut of Holy Writ. We do not limit our understanding of a future time-line to one chapter or one book. That would be insane.

More like, you get in the habit of not letting scripture speak to you but twisting scripture to make it say what you want it to say to the point where it's a default process for you.

Instead it's "what do I want the scripture to saith?"

 

[Douggg]

Premillennialists commonly apply this reading to the second coming, however, a close study of this reading shows that it relates specifically to the Lord’s ascension. The question that emanates from here is: where, in this vision, does the son of man (Christ) go? Is it to the earth or is it to His Father? Of course the passage answers this for us; “the Son of man … came to the Ancient of days.” The Son of Man is shown here not to be coming from the Ancient of Days, but rather going to Him in the clouds.

I don't know of any pre-mil who interpret Daniel 7:13-14 as being the Second Coming.

Instead, pre-mil views Matthew 24:30c as being the Second Coming.

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

30a And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: the sixth seal event.

30b and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, the reaction of seeing Jesus in heaven in the sixth seal event.

30c and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Jesus descending down to earth with His heavenly host.

 

[Timtofly]

All of the fallen angels, including Satan, "kept not their first estate", so that means they all, including Satan, are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day". Clearly, this does not mean they are literally chained and unable to do anything. It's figurative language to describe the certainty of their ultimate fate on judgment day.

They are loosed to judge the world, not be judged. How do you interpret the 5th Trumpet?

So either they are bound in darkness or not, since you lump Satan in with the rest. You cannot change the meaning of bound in darkness to suit your fancy, even though it seems you are convinced in your ideology. You do declare the meanings of such things by rendering everything, only interpretable by your standards.

If humans locked up the law breakers like you claim God does, then no one would ever be behind bars. That is just a figure of speech to make people feel safer. Do you not think that God actually has kept these angels locked up, and they have literally done nothing for thousands of years? A spiritual prison for spiritual entities should work just like a physical prison for physical entities. It does not matter physical or spiritual. The point is they are locked up. If being locked up does not mean locked up, there are a lot of prisoners in jails around the world just pretending to be locked up, who actually are not. Locked up not actually meaning locked up.

Satan has not been locked up. The rebel angels have been locked up. There is that one chapter that you claim Satan is locked up, but not really, John was just pulling our leg.

Notice two things here. Satan convinced those angels to rebel, no where did it say Satan rebelled and left his job post.

In Revelation 20, it does not say, Satan rebelled and was consumed by fire. Once again, Satan convinced another group, to do the same thing all over again, without being a participant himself. Not sure why you change Scripture around and make it say stuff it really does not say. Just because something makes sense, does not make it true or a fact.

 

[Jamdoc]

Book of Enoch (again, not inspiried scripture so take it with a grain of salt) has it as the watchers were not Angels that rebelled with Satan.. but rather they took human wives (which DOES match up with Genesis 6) afterward, so God imprisoned them for 70 generations (to be released at the 5th trumpet)
The angels that rebelled with Satan were not imprisoned with them (they're the demons that can still afflict us today)
So in essence, 2 instances of Rebellion by angels.

 

[Douggg]

By the way, scripture says that all fallen angels are in chains, so that would include Satan.

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

All of the fallen angels, including Satan, "kept not their first estate", so that means they all, including Satan, are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day". Clearly, this does not mean they are literally chained and unable to do anything. It's figurative language to describe the certainty of their ultimate fate on judgment day.

The passage is not referring to all the fallen angels. And does not include Satan, being with them in chains, i.e. imprisoned.

Jude 1:6 is referring to certain angels that rebelled with Satan. Not keeping their first estate, but left their own habitation - is that they came down to earth to live and had lascivious relations with human woman resulting in the giants before the flood.

Those specific angels are in a place of darkness somewhere, imprisoned for what they did.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

[keras]

Christ is therefore not coming from heaven to earth in this passage, but coming from earth to heaven.

Christ came to God; Revelation 5:1-14, and as Daniel 7, Psalms 2, + tell us. He was given dominion over the world and will rule over it for 1000 years.
This could commence in about 10 years, as Revelation plainly tells us.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Christ came to God; Revelation 5:1-14, and as Daniel 7, Psalms 2, + tell us. He was given dominion over the world and will rule over it for 1000 years.
This could commence in about 10 years, as Revelation plainly tells us.

Are you date-setting?

 

[Just The Facts]

Hello Sov

To all readers of this post I have only posted the title and chapter referred by Sovereigngrace from his post on page 26 post # 520 please go there if you wish to read all they said about these chapters and verses from 1Clement

Clement never mentioned a future thousand years, but he did teach some Amil fundamentals.

Clement believed the Church is true Israel

That is not an amill that is just not Dispensationalism I believe the Church is Israel both literally IE mostly lost tribes and figuratively. You do understand 90% of premill's are not Dispensationalists right? Dispensationalism is a belief most common in sects like American Baptist Pentecostal and other sects that began in "the great awakening" which was an early 1800's protestants' 'second reformation" movement.

It started off slow but by the 1820's really started gain speed in America. George Bush in 1840's wrote a book called The Valley of Vision: or the Dry Bones of Israel Revived the Bush family were key in the spread of this theology in America. In it he states it is Americas destiny to help restore and then support a new Jewish Nation in Palestine and that controlling American foreign policy to see this happens is what good Dispensationalists must do. Israel being reformed in 1948 is a self fulfilling prophecy of the Dispensationalists.

Clement believed in a general judgment when Jesus comes

1 Clement 34

Those verses do not prove he was a amill they only prove he was premill he clearly states that the Kingdom is yet to come and that the promise as of his day was yet fulfilled. That by its very nature is Pre millennial not In millennial.

Clement believed in Christ current reign over His enemies

1 Clement 36:1-37:1

That is not what he is talking about there He clearly states the "Enemy" in Psalms is anyone who sins and since Jesus has earned the right of Judgement they are under his foot. He goes on to say let us be good workers for Christ and obey his commands. The whole epistle is intended to stop the infighting at the church of Corinth. He spends much time showing how God does not like strife and that to cause it is to be an enemy of God. Here he says if you are an enemy of God you are not his servant.

Unlike all the early Chiliasts, Clement believed in the heavenly intermediate state

1 Clement 45

He is saying noting of the sort here. You are adding meaning that is just not there. He is talking about in fighting over the Bishop seat. He says Moses knew who God would pick to be priest likewise the Apostles set up a system for picking the Bishop and we must trust the Apostles they come from Christ and Christ from God. He goes on to say that those who are trying to sully the name of the appointed Bishops who lived good lives are doing so in vain. he points out they have been persecuted suffered and did so with patience. Their words of malice can not take away the gifts they will receive when Jesus returns. He compares the Bishops of Corinth to the three men tossed into the furnace in Babylon and says like them their names are written down in the book of life. He then continues on through 46 talking about how all this strife over the Bishops appointments is not in line with God's words and that those who do so will suffer at Jesus' hand on judgment day.

Clement believed in “the already” and “the not yet” reality of the kingdom

1 Clement 54

Once again you are adding meaning based on your belief that is just not in the text. All through the preceding verses he talks about living a good life and following the good way sfull of love and compassion o that you can enter through the gate. he starts off saying Who therefore is noble among you? Who is compassionate? Who is fulfilled with love. He simply says if you live a good life you are already living as in THAT Kingdom because like the Bishops your name is written in the Book. This is the exact same thing Jesus says to Peter why do you worry about this life know your place is assured and you are already in the Kingdom.

However in 1 Clement 23:5-8 he clearly shows he did not believe that the kingdom had come and further more 26:2-4 shows he believed that we do not receive our reward until we are resurrected. this is also backed up by 34:7 to 35:4 where he talks about not believing you have it now but keeping faith unto works that you may be found worthy to receive it when Jesus returns.

Clement believed in the impending destruction at the second coming

1 Clement 57:2-7

Once again you are adding meaning based on your belief that is just not there. He is talking to those who were causing strife over the Bishop seat he says repent it is better to be small in the book of life then be a big man on earth and not in the book of life. He tells them to accept punishment from the Bishop for their error and that it is a good thing when you are chastised by God because it means you are under his protection and you have been found worthy. Unlike the Pagan Kings who sacrificed themselves when calamity came you will have me to call on when calamity comes on you. However if you do not accept chastisement then you will not have me to call on when calamity comes. He is not talking about the day of the Lord here because he says "at hand" you are adding that meaning. He quotes Job he is talking about every day life and says when the problems of every day life come upon you quickly I will be there to carry you through. He states nothing more.

You have presented no evidence that he was amill in fact the opposite most of this shows he was premill, only when you add your own meaning to his plain words can you make this say what you wish it had said in the first place.

Sovereign you have your belief and I have mine. To me you have presented no evidence that he was amill. I am as equally assured that in your mind I have presented no evidence that he was premil. Let us be at peace with each other and agree to disagree. peace to you my friend in Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Hello Sov



That is not an amill that is just not Dispensationalism I believe the Church is Israel both literally IE mostly lost tribes and figuratively. You do understand 90% of premill's are not Dispensationalists right? Dispensationalism is a belief most common in sects like American Baptist Pentecostal and other sects that began in "the great awakening" which was an early 1800's protestants' 'second reformation" movement.

It started off slow but by the 1820's really started gain speed in America. George Bush in 1840's wrote a book called The Valley of Vision: or the Dry Bones of Israel Revived the Bush family were key in the spread of this theology in America. In it he states it is Americas destiny to help restore and then support a new Jewish Nation in Palestine and that controlling American foreign policy to see this happens is what good Dispensationalists must do. Israel being reformed in 1948 is a self fulfilling prophecy of the Dispensationalists.



Those verses do not prove he was a amill they only prove he was premill he clearly states that the Kingdom is yet to come and that the promise as of his day was yet fulfilled. That by its very nature is Pre millennial not In millennial.



That is not what he is talking about there He clearly states the "Enemy" in Psalms is anyone who sins and since Jesus has earned the right of Judgement they are under his foot. He goes on to say let us be good workers for Christ and obey his commands. The whole epistle is intended to stop the infighting at the church of Corinth. He spends much time showing how God does not like strife and that to cause it is to be an enemy of God. Here he says if you are an enemy of God you are not his servant.



He is saying noting of the sort here. You are adding meaning that is just not there. He is talking about in fighting over the Bishop seat. He says Moses knew who God would pick to be priest likewise the Apostles set up a system for picking the Bishop and we must trust the Apostles they come from Christ and Christ from God. He goes on to say that those who are trying to sully the name of the appointed Bishops who lived good lives are doing so in vain. he points out they have been persecuted suffered and did so with patience. Their words of malice can not take away the gifts they will receive when Jesus returns. He compares the Bishops of Corinth to the three men tossed into the furnace in Babylon and says like them their names are written down in the book of life. He then continues on through 46 talking about how all this strife over the Bishops appointments is not in line with God's words and that those who do so will suffer at Jesus' hand on judgment day.



Once again you are adding meaning based on your belief that is just not in the text. All through the preceding verses he talks about living a good life and following the good way sfull of love and compassion o that you can enter through the gate. he starts off saying Who therefore is noble among you? Who is compassionate? Who is fulfilled with love. He simply says if you live a good life you are already living as in THAT Kingdom because like the Bishops your name is written in the Book. This is the exact same thing Jesus says to Peter why do you worry about this life know your place is assured and you are already in the Kingdom.

However in 1 Clement 23:5-8 he clearly shows he did not believe that the kingdom had come and further more 26:2-4 shows he believed that we do not receive our reward until we are resurrected. this is also backed up by 34:7 to 35:4 where he talks about not believing you have it now but keeping faith unto works that you may be found worthy to receive it when Jesus returns.



Once again you are adding meaning based on your belief that is just not there. He is talking to those who were causing strife over the Bishop seat he says repent it is better to be small in the book of life then be a big man on earth and not in the book of life. He tells them to accept punishment from the Bishop for their error and that it is a good thing when you are chastised by God because it means you are under his protection and you have been found worthy. Unlike the Pagan Kings who sacrificed themselves when calamity came you will have me to call on when calamity comes on you. However if you do not accept chastisement then you will not have me to call on when calamity comes. He is not talking about the day of the Lord here because he says "at hand" you are adding that meaning. He quotes Job he is talking about every day life and says when the problems of every day life come upon you quickly I will be there to carry you through. He states nothing more.

You have presented no evidence that he was amill in fact the opposite most of this shows he was premill, only when you add your own meaning to his plain words can you make this say what you wish it had said in the first place.

Sovereign you have your belief and I have mine. To me you have presented no evidence that he was amill. I am as equally assured that in your mind I have presented no evidence that he was premil. Let us be at peace with each other and agree to disagree. peace to you my friend in Christ.

First, you do not fully quote what you are responding to. You just present the headings. That is not fair to the reader. Can you amend that? I always fully quote you so that the reader can judge whether I am being fair and accurate or not.

Second, it just seems like you are out to defend Premil at any cost, rather than let the evidence speak for itself. I do believe you are being objective here. My last post actually rebuts everything you have just said here, so it is pointless me repeating myself. I refer you back to it.

Third, to keep alleging that a belief in a future manifestation of the kingdom is exclusively a Premil expectation is at very least naive, at worst deliberately misleading. If you want people to take you seriously, at least keep to the truth. While Amils believe Jesus brought the kingdom of God to earth spiritually through His earthly ministry, they believe the kingdom Of God is coming soon in all its final, perfect and eternal glory.

Fourth, yes, I believe it is fair to say that approximately 90% of Premils in America today are probably Dispy/Pretrib.

Fifth, I am still waiting for you to present one reference to a thousand years in Barnabas or Clement, or any mention of any of the Premil tenets. You have furnished me with nothing so far, as I predicted. Remember, it was you making the big claims. The burden of proof is with you. First principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." So, the ball is in your court!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You are absolutely wrong:
Revelation 20:4-6...I saw the souls of the martyrs...and they lived and reigned with Christ for 1000 years. [lived; brought back to life - not made immortal]
Blessed are those in this first resurrection, for over them their second death has no power..... [they are flesh and blood, but as their names are Written in the Book of Life, immortality will be theirs at the GWT Judgment]

How can they be said to be mortal when the second death (being cast into the lake of fire - Rev 20:14-15) has no power over them? You're not making any sense here. It's hilarious that you think you proved something here when you didn't even come close to doing so. What would be the point of them being resurrected with their mortal bodies when they are already guaranteed to avoid the second death? That's nonsense.

The 'beast' is symbolic of the man who will be the leader of the One World Govt. Other symbols are easily explained, but to make the specific 1000 year period symbolic; is gross error.

That's a very weak argument. You acted as if the number of times it's mentioned determines whether it's literal or not and that is clearly not the case. But, you're too prideful to admit that.

Another jump to a wrong conclusion, made to denigrate and smear me.
But actually; that Satan is behind all sin, is quite Biblical. It all goes back to Adam and Eve; the Fall.

That is utterly false. You are the one who said there wouldn't be any sin during the millennium because of Satan's absence. I showed you scripture which says people can sin even without his influence. And, once again, you are too prideful to admit that you were wrong.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Dear dear Sov

Proof You Have Nothing

I asked you to post just one verse from these two Fathers that says the 1,000 years is not a litteral period of time.

You did not so you have nothing. If you had something you would have posted it but you did not because it does not exist. This proves they were Premill


Now finally you have stated your view of amill which was all I asked you to de a half dozen posts ago so that I could understand what you believe and not assume I understood what you believe as you assume you understand what I believe.



That is not true at all and whether there is a future Kingdom is not the difference between amill and premill.

The Two Names state quite clearly what they are saying amill believes the 1,000 years has already started and is spiritual in nature. That when you die you receive your inheritance /reward that is you go staright to heaven to be with Jesus ruling Earth from heaven.

Amillenarism or Amillennialism (from Latin mille, one thousand; "a" being a negation prefix) is a type of chillegorism which teaches that there will be no millennial reign of the righteous on earth. Amillennialists interpret the thousand years symbolically to refer either to a temporary bliss of souls in heaven before the general resurrection, or to the infinite bliss of the righteous after the general resurrection.[1]

Amills teach that Rv: 20:

[4] Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Amill be its very name means that you believe the 1,000 year reign of Christ has begun,and that you receive your inheratance at either Baptism or Death..

Is this not what you believe?

We believe we're in Christ's spiritual kingdom now. It's the kingdom which did not come by observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world (John 18:36). However, we do not believe we receive our full inheritance when we die. We believe our souls go to be with Christ in heaven but our bodies remain dead while waiting for the redemption of our bodies that Paul wrote about in Romans 8.

But, we believe we will be changed to have immortal bodies when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:50-54) and we believe we will inherit the the fullness of the kingdom of God in the form of the new heavens and new earth at that time (2 Peter 3:10-13) when Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father (Matt 13:36-43, 1 Cor 15:22-24).

You act as if Amils are all full preterists. I'm frankly amazed at your ignorance of our overall belief. You spend all this time arguing with Amils when you don't even fully grasp what we believe. So, you end up wasting your time making straw man arguments.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don't know of any pre-mil who interpret Daniel 7:13-14 as being the Second Coming.

Instead, pre-mil views Matthew 24:30c as being the Second Coming.

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

30a And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: the sixth seal event.

30b and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, the reaction of seeing Jesus in heaven in the sixth seal event.

30c and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Jesus descending down to earth with His heavenly host.

So do non-preterist Amills.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The passage is not referring to all the fallen angels. And does not include Satan, being with them in chains, i.e. imprisoned.

Sure it does. Where does it say it doesn't refer to all fallen angels? Which fallen angels did not leave their first estate? They all did.

Jude 1:6 is referring to certain angels that rebelled with Satan. Not keeping their first estate, but left their own habitation - is that they came down to earth to live and had lascivious relations with human woman resulting in the giants before the flood.

Those specific angels are in a place of darkness somewhere, imprisoned for what they did.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

You are badly misinterpreting that passage just as you do almost every other passage in scripture. Verse 7 is not implying that the angels which didn't keep their first estate are only ones who had relations with women.

In verse 7 Jude was just giving another example of a group that rebelled against God. He used Sodom and Gomorrah (and the surrounding towns) as his third example following the two previous examples given of the unbelieving Israelites after they had been delivered out of Egypt (Jude 1:5) and the fallen angels who rebelled against God.

The angels leaving their first estate has nothing to do with some of them leaving heaven to go to earth to have relations with women, but rather has to do with them rebelling against God and no longer having their positions and status in heaven with God that they formerly had. That applies to all fallen angels, including Satan.

Beyond all that, explain to me how spirit beings like angels can be literally chained up? That's nonsense.