Foreward: Using the colloquial term here, not to be too challenging, of 'considering criticially a viewpoint other then one's own. I lean heavily towards pre-millenialism, and the major reason I am opening discussions on the subject is to have my own beliefs tested. This includes testing my own, albeit limited confidence, in the very possibility of the amillenialist viewpoint.
At this juncture, I am very strongly a pre-millenialist, but I am open to the possibility that amillenialism has some merit. So, this is me arguing the devil's advocate view for amillenialism. Understand, I have answers to every point I make, below.
Regardless, I believe these are the strongest arguments I have ever heard for amillennialism all put together.
Definition of terms: everyone is pretty familiar with the definition of terms here, however, one problem with that is, 'you do not know how I view pre-millenialism'. Further, 'I do not know how you view amillenialism'. Though, the former is far more likely then the later, if you are an amillenialist.
Amillenialism typically means you believe the Millennium to be ongoing. To set aside baggage from 'preterist' and 'non-preterist' viewpoints, and baggage from 'pre-tribulational', 'mid-trib', 'post-trib' doctrines.
Devil's advocate for amillenialism:
- The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the 'Holy Roman Empire', the 'Byzantine' or 'Eastern Roman Empire', and Protestant churches have all promoted and spread the Name of Jesus, and the message of God across the world.
- There have been many good saints and martyrs from all of these branches. All across the world. And, I believe, continue to be many good saints and martyrs. (Martyrdom is still happening, across the world.)
- There are many times, in Scriptural prophecy, where a single verse or a single chapter speaks both of something that happens shortly after the verse was given, and something that happens in the far future. So, there are times where one sees a split and a pause. Further, there are even verses where two different events - albeit always related events - happen far apart from one another, even if neither of them happen shortly after the prophecy of either event is given.
- Taking Revelation in chronological order does have problems due to the seeming impossibility of this happening. I believe the hardest possibility of this being possible of happening to be Revelation 12. Revelation 12 is problematic on many levels for strict chronology to be maintained, at least, without some sort of explanation.
You have there the birth of 'the one who will shatter the nations', you have that one's 'taken up to the Throne of God', you have the battle between Michael and his angels, and between Satan and his angels. The result of this battle is Satan being expelled from any access to Heaven and 'thrown to earth'.
Did not Jesus see 'Satan falls as lightning from Heaven to earth'? Did not Jesus say, on the eve of his murder by Satan, that 'now the prince of this world is driven out of the Kingdom'? Did not Satan fall in the Garden of Eden?
- Jesus brought the Kingdom of God, the very Kingdom of Heaven, with him, when he came the first time. Anyone who is given the Spirit of God, and born again, enters into that very Kingdom. That Kingdom has existed, unquestionably, since the time of the giving of the Spirit to the Twelve Apostles, shortly before the ascension of Jesus to Heaven. And, shortly after his death and resurrection from the dead.
- How can anyone say that Jesus has not already come, spiritually, and is not spiritually ruling through the saints, over this past two thousand years, as it is said he would do in Revelation 20:4? Have we not seen the entire Roman Empire becoming under the mantle of Jesus Christ through both the Orthodox and Catholic churches? Have we not seen the modern world come under, largely, the mantle of the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic churches? Further, the Millennium must still be continuing, as the last enemy is not yet destroyed.
- Are there three comings of the Lord Jesus, when Jesus only mentioned two comings? Are there, even, four comings of the Lord Jesus? Jesus coming in Revelation 11, at the Seventh Trumpet, Jesus coming in, what, Revelation 20:4, Jesus coming in Revelation 19, Jesus coming after the Millennium? That makes five. This makes no sense.
How could that possibly make sense? Who could make sense out of that?
- How, on earth, could the Seventh Trumpet sound - which is the last Trumpet, most agree, my own self included - over a thousand years before death, the last enemy, is finally destroyed?
- Augustine, and others, have argued that Pre-Millenialists invariably engage in such things as 'bacchanal feasts', believing Jesus will literally reign with the Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh. Therefore, if they believe this, they must be wrong, because the 'Kingdom is not of flesh and blood, but of peace, love, and joy in the Spirit'.
So, the Millennium can not happen in the future, in any near literal sense of the word stronger then it is happening today.
Where, amillenialists believe, they reign with Christ not physically, but spiritually.
- Many of the most vocal pre-millenialists believe they will be literally, physically lifted up into Heaven, 'leaving behind everyone else' at the ascension of the two witnesses, or shortly thereafter, at the blowing of the Seventh Trumpet, in Revelation 11. But, the Kingdom of Heaven comes to earth.
- After the Millennium, you see the City of God descend from Heaven to earth. After that, you see the City on earth, where Christ lives. How could any of that happen then, and yet, not during the Millennium? If it does happen during the Millennium, then there are parts of Revelation which are out of order, thereby destroying the strict, chronological order pre-millenialists demand.
- Is it not right for the 'Christian nations' to consider the kingdoms of Communism, Islam, and other totaliarian kingdoms invalid and at rebellion to the 'Christian nations'? Was it not justified to go to war against the Nazis and Communists? Even, justified by God, Christ, and Heaven?
- While anyone can point out the many flaws of colonialism and expansionism, was there really any other way to get to where we are now, in history? And who can say this is really bad, how we live and are in the Christian world, 'the first world'? Does God have some problem with the internet or television? Modern technology? What great sins could be there, that the Beast, False Prophet, and 'Babylon' are all present today? That today's world might be thoroughly corrupt? Are there not, now, billions of Christians -- by any token of standard?
- The 'beheading' and 'first resurrection' of Revelation 20, the one which documents the Millennium could all be metaphorical. After all, is not one who is beheaded as one who believes blindly and gives up their capacity for free, independent, critical thinking?
Could it not be argued that the 'first resurrection' is something that continually happens across the amillenialist Millenium? That anyone 'beheaded' by the Beast and False Prophet may come to Christ during this time period, be restored to right mind, and experience the 'first resurrection'?
