One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

sovereigngrace · Sep 18, 2021

Jamdoc said:
It does because it shows that God gave dominion of the world to wicked angels after the fall of man, and until this judgement takes place, which I believe is during the second coming, not the first, because Paul talks about them in Ephesians 6:12

I do, but because Revelation REVEALS events that happen, making sense of all previous prophetic scripture, it puts the pieces together, I use Revelation as a key to all other prophecy in the bible. I fit all prophetic scripture to that key. All the events take place over the course of the second coming. Where without revelation what you have is kind of a mess where people all try to fit a bunch of different events into a single day. Revelation actually shows it taking place over time. There are different characteristics of the events in Jesus' second coming, in one Jesus is in the clouds and people mourn (Zechariah 12, Matthew 24, Revelation 1:7, Revelation 6:12-17), in one Jesus is on the ground and His clothes are bloodstained and He's there for war and the wicked try to fight Him (Zechariah 14, Isaiah 63, Revelation 19), and in one the whole earth is consumed in fire (Zephaniah, 2 Peter 3, Revelation 20).
What you do is handwave away the details and differences, and chose one of those 3 to be the "true" second coming and allegorized everything else.
What I have done is interpreted all 3 of those events to happen, over the course of time, first appearing in the clouds, then leading a battle, and finally destroying the wicked all in fire.
It all happens as written, but they happen over time as Revelation gives us timing elements.

All pre wrath, and some post trib understand Jesus' second coming as a series of events rather than an instant nuke the earth.

Was Jesus ascension part of His first coming? It was over 30 years after He was born
if the first coming was multiple events over 30+ years, then the second coming is all the events from Him appearing in the clouds for the rapture, until.. eternity, He never leaves us again.
It's all the second coming.

You talk about figurative language, yet you refuse to see a chunk of figurative language as being figurative language.
You have latched onto one bit of figurative language to take literally (Day of the Lord) and then tried to shoehorn everything else into that single 24 hour day.
When Isaiah 34 and 63 clearly teach that it is "the day of the Lord" that is figurative.

Square peg, round hole.

Your pattern is do avoid multiple explicit passages that clearly, from a plain straight-forward perspective, forbid your doctrine and then explain them away by your flawed opinion of Revelation (and especially Revelation 20). Your avoidance of 2 Peter 3 is plain for all to see. That is because it explicitly teaches a climactic return of Jesus and exposes the Premio paradigm.

Jamdoc · Sep 18, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
Your pattern is do avoid multiple explicit passages that clearly, from a plain straight-forward perspective, forbid your doctrine and then explain them away by your flawed opinion of Revelation (and especially Revelation 20). Your avoidance of 2 Peter 3 is plain for all to see. That is because it explicitly teaches a climactic return of Jesus and exposes the Premio paradigm.

I don't avoid 2 Peter 3 at all.
I place it at Revelation 20:9.

You choose 1 set of details to make "true" and the rest allegory to handwave away differences
I choose all 3 sets of details and place them in sequence.
So nothing is allegory.

Douggg · Sep 18, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
Because it is not a geographical place. It is a spiritual state. Read the text: "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit" (Rev 9:1).

The bottomless pit is only opened when the angel alights to earth. Simple!

So are you claiming the bottomless pit has been opened already?

I thought Amils say Satan is currently in the bottomless pit.

jeffweedaman · Sep 18, 2021

Jamdoc said:
I do, but because Revelation REVEALS events that happen, making sense of all previous prophetic scripture, it puts the pieces together, I use Revelation as a key to all other prophecy in the bible. I fit all prophetic scripture to that key.

What if you interpret Rev incorrectly ? You have a key that does not fit the lock.
I fix my eyes on what Jesus said in the Gospels as being the key.

What he has already spoken is what he gave to John when he wrote Revelation.

sovereigngrace · Sep 18, 2021

Douggg said:
So are you claiming the bottomless pit has been opened already?

I thought Amils say Satan is currently in the bottomless pit.

I believe we have arrived about there.

We parallel this with the release of Satan for his little season in Revelation 20, the removal of the restraint on the mystery of iniquity in 2 Thessalonians 2, and the rise of the beast before the second coming in Revelation 17.

keras · Sep 18, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
We parallel this with the release of Satan for his little season, the removal of the restraint on the mystery of iniquity in 2 Thessalonians 2, and the rise of the beast before the second coming in Revelation 17. I believe we have arrived there.

That this idea is wrong, is easily seen.
Because everything is as it always has been, since Jesus first Advent.

However, Satan will be thrown out of heaven 1260 days before Jesus Returns. Revelation 12:7-9
He will then gain world control; Daniel 7:23-25, Revelation 13:5-8

Jamdoc · Sep 18, 2021

jeffweedaman said:
What if you interpret Rev incorrectly ? You have a key that does not fit the lock.
I fix my eyes on what Jesus said in the Gospels as being the key.

What he has already spoken is what he gave to John when he wrote Revelation.

It does fit though. The whole thing fits a pattern of tribulation, return of Jesus, rapture, wrath of God, Armageddon, MK, GWT, eternity

Matthew 24 only addresses the Tribulation, Return of Jesus, and Rapture portions.
Because the wrath of God and Armageddon are not so relevant to the audience of believers.

sovereigngrace · Sep 18, 2021

keras said:
That this idea is wrong, is easily seen.
Because everything is as it always has been, since Jesus first Advent.

However, Satan will be thrown out of heaven 1260 days before Jesus Returns. Revelation 12:7-9
He will then gain world control; Daniel 7:23-25, Revelation 13:5-8

I totally disagree. It happened 2000 years ago when the man child was caught up to His throne. Your battle is with the text here again.

keras · Sep 19, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
I totally disagree. It happened 2000 years ago when the man child was caught up to His throne. Your battle is with the text here again.

But Satan has continued to deceive people. Jesus warned us to take care to not be deceived, Matthew 24:4 and 1 Peter 5:8-9 is indisputable.
Note; that 1 Peter 5:10 says there will be a time of suffering BEFORE we are restored and will live with Him.

Your seem to have lost the battle with reality.

Just The Facts · Sep 19, 2021

Hi Sov

sovereigngrace said:
It was me that said Barnabas and Clement never even mentioned or recognized a thousand years in their writings.

Well I never said they did.

sovereigngrace said:
Now you are now demanding I prove what does not exist. That is ridiculous!

Yes it is............. so why have you been doing it to me for the last 20 posts.

You claimed they were amill I said they are not. Neither of these Fathers wrote about the 1,000 years because it is most likely they never read Revelation before they wrote these letters. Which you confirm in your first post in this thread. In fact they may have died before Revelation was written. Your claims of them being amill are based on other things they have said. My claims of them being Premill are also based on other things they have said.

sovereigngrace said:
Barnabas taught:

Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day … when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves.

This is the opposite to Premil where sin, death, Satan, evil and the wicked continue to operate on their alleged millennial earth.

For he who keepeth these shall be glorified in the kingdom of God; but he who chooseth other things shall be destroyed with his works. On this account there will be a resurrection, on this account a retribution … For the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one]. The Lord is near, and His reward … be ye taught of God, inquiring diligently what the Lord asks from you; and do it that ye maybe safe in the day of judgment.

This couldn't be clearer! What day is at hand? His Second Advent! This proves that he believed Satan and all wickedness will come to an end when Jesus comes. Barnabas was Amil!

Wickedness not only survives the second coming in Premil but it prospers to the degree that sin, death, war, the wicked, corruption and Satan overwhelm your new earth. Wickedness swamps the Premil millennium, perpetrated by billions of stiff-necked rebels (as the sand of the sea) who become instant Satan worshippers after suffering 1000 years of Christ's righteous rule. This is the opposite to Amil, that believes the wicked and wickedness cease to exist at the return of Christ. Barnabas and most of the early writers believed that.

Your claims are based on an interpretation of what they have said. You are claiming that because Barnabas said all evil things shall perish on the coming day that means they must be amill. You then go on to state your view of what Premills believe and explain how that can not be if all evil things are destroyed on the day of the Lord. The problem with this is Barnabas clearly whether right or wrong, believed that to God one day was a thousand years. So by default he would then believe that The Day of the Lord was also 1,000 years. It does not matter if you or I believe this is true nor does it matter if that is what Peter actually meant not that he ever read 2Peter for sure. The point is it does not matter what you think, what I think, what Scripture actually means, all that matters is what he thought it meant, because we are looking at what he believed.

My claims are based on their plain words and what those words must mean in light of what they said. For example I said Barnabas is Premill because he states that he is living in the days of the 10 Kings of Daniel 7: He also states that the Little horn has not yet come. By Default this means he did not believe the day of the Lord had yet happened. In addition with the verses you quotes he also clearly states that that the reward / inheritance was also still to come and that it was tied directly to the Day of the Lord.

Since he didn't believe the Day of The Lord or the reward /Inheritance had happened he clearly did not believe in amill split of the reward of the Saints at some point in Jesus's life or death and resurrection and then thousands of years later the Day of the Lord. He seen the Reward and the Destruction all happening on the Day of the Lord which he believed would be 1,000 years long.

Now whether amill is right or premill is right does not hinge on what Barnabas or Clement believed.

However my original statement was accurate and true. No Early Church Fathers pre 150 AD taught amill.

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2021

Just The Facts said:
Hi Sov

Well I never said they did.

Yes it is............. so why have you been doing it to me for the last 20 posts.

You claimed they were amill I said they are not. Neither of these Fathers wrote about the 1,000 years because it is most likely they never read Revelation before they wrote these letters. Which you confirm in your first post in this thread. In fact they may have died before Revelation was written. Your claims of them being amill are based on other things they have said. My claims of them being Premill are also based on other things they have said.

Your claims are based on an interpretation of what they have said. You are claiming that because Barnabas said all evil things shall perish on the coming day that means they must be amill. You then go on to state your view of what Premills believe and explain how that can not be if all evil things are destroyed on the day of the Lord. The problem with this is Barnabas clearly whether right or wrong, believed that to God one day was a thousand years. So by default he would then believe that The Day of the Lord was also 1,000 years. It does not matter if you or I believe this is true nor does it matter if that is what Peter actually meant not that he ever read 2Peter for sure. The point is it does not matter what you think, what I think, what Scripture actually means, all that matters is what he thought it meant, because we are looking at what he believed.

My claims are based on their plain words and what those words must mean in light of what they said. For example I said Barnabas is Premill because he states that he is living in the days of the 10 Kings of Daniel 7: He also states that the Little horn has not yet come. By Default this means he did not believe the day of the Lord had yet happened. In addition with the verses you quotes he also clearly states that that the reward / inheritance was also still to come and that it was tied directly to the Day of the Lord.

Since he didn't believe the Day of The Lord or the reward /Inheritance had happened he clearly did not believe in amill split of the reward of the Saints at some point in Jesus's life or death and resurrection and then thousands of years later the Day of the Lord. He seen the Reward and the Destruction all happening on the Day of the Lord which he believed would be 1,000 years long.

Now whether amill is right or premill is right does not hinge on what Barnabas or Clement believed.

However my original statement was accurate and true. No Early Church Fathers pre 150 AD taught amill.

Do you even understand what Amils believe? Plainly not! Amil believes in a climactic return of Christ. They hold that the second coming is the end. It is the end of corruption, mortal man, the wicked and all wickedness. It is the end of time. Amils only recognizes a 2-age model, that of this evil age and the perfect age to come. Premil adds a 3rd age through their faulty understanding of Revelation 20, that is blighted with all the vestiges of the fall like sin and sinners, death and disease, lying, dying and crying, corruption and crime, war and terror. I do not believe Premils have any thing in Scripture nor among the ECFs up until AD 270 to support their thesis. It is not hard to prove that most of the ECFs believed the Church was spiritual Israel and that the coming of Christ is the end. It is impossible to prove they held the Premil fundamentals as, you have even admitted, there is not one single mention of a thousand years.

When I pressed you: you brought nothing to the table. That is because both Clement and Barnabas support the Amil paradigm. Revelation 20 is one of numerous climactic passages that support Amil. Premils depend totally upon their lone proof passage. Take that out of the equation and they have nothing. This discussion has reinforced that.

Just The Facts · Sep 19, 2021

Hi Sov

When I pressed you you brought nothing you only admitted they never said the 1,000 years was not literal. Proving you have nothing that is because Baranabas and Clement are Premill

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2021

Just The Facts said:
Hi Sov

When I pressed you you brought nothing you only admitted they never said the 1,000 years was not literal. Proving you have nothing that is because Baranabas and Clement are Premill

If you actual discover some hard evidence of any ECF from AD30-AD270 holding to the modern day Premil tenets, i would be obliged if you would let me know.

jeffweedaman · Sep 19, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
Do you even understand what Amils believe?

He clearly does not. He keeps on believing that Amills believe the Lord has already come,.... even after being corrected that we dont believe such nonsense.

Would be nice if JTF acknowledged this fact about Amill so he can at least address us properly.

sovereigngrace · Sep 19, 2021

Just The Facts said:
However my original statement was accurate and true. No Early Church Fathers pre 150 AD taught amill.

The sad thing is: you have gone through this thread, you have repeatedly made these broad sweep unsubstantiated partisan statements about the ECFs, yet you have failed to present any any supporting historic support. From my previous interactions with you, and your failure to present any historic evidence to support your previous claims, I seriously doubt you have even studied them. So (once again), we can mark your claims as unproven and nothing more than theological posturing.

Guojing · Sep 20, 2021

Douggg said:
Here is what I conclude about Amil's irrational thinking of Satan is in chains, but Satan is in the third heaven, and walks about seeking who he can devour....

Amil came out of Covenant theology - which Covenant theology, itself, originating in England at the time of the reformers.

Then when dispensationalism arose, and became very popular in America, the teachings of Covenant theology teachings on Israel and the millennium were challenged. That conflict between Covenant theology and dispensationalism we see being played out in this forum (my personal observation).

Covenant theology > Amil and the church replacing Israel.
Dispensationalism > Pre-mil and the church and Israel separate entities.

It seems to me, that Covenant theology as the foundation of the Anglican church has a profound influence in Australia and New Zealand - as people from England settled in those lands, imo.

Well said, some of them have acknowledged their Covenant Theology foundation.

jgr · Sep 20, 2021

Douggg said:
Amil came out of Covenant theology - which Covenant theology, itself, originating in England at the time of the reformers.

Predictably false.

Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD

More than 1,000 years before the Reformers

Dialogue with Trypho

But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now —(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law — namely, Christ — has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: 'Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, you kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in My arm?' And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: 'Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt' Jeremiah 31:31-32). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.

Douggg · Sep 20, 2021

jgr said:
Predictably false.

Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD

More than 1,000 years before the Reformers

Dialogue with Trypho

But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now —(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law — namely, Christ — has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: 'Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, you kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in My arm?' And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: 'Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt' Jeremiah 31:31-32). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.

Covenant theology - Wikipedia

jgr · Sep 20, 2021

Douggg said:
Covenant theology - Wikipedia

More than 1,000 years before the Reformers:

Justin Martyr:
Dialogue with Trypho

Covenant theology - Wikipedia:
"Concepts foundational to covenant theology can be found in the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Augustine."

Spiritual Jew · Sep 20, 2021

Jamdoc said:
All pre wrath, and some post trib understand Jesus' second coming as a series of events rather than an instant nuke the earth.

Was Jesus ascension part of His first coming? It was over 30 years after He was born
if the first coming was multiple events over 30+ years, then the second coming is all the events from Him appearing in the clouds for the rapture, until.. eternity, He never leaves us again.
It's all the second coming.

You were including the 1000 years and Satan's little season in His second coming as well. I don't know of anyone else who does that. When people think of His second coming they might think of a brief time that occurs before that and of the day He returns and things that will happen on that day but they don't extend it out to 1000+ years afterwards or to eternity.

You say that the fire that Peter mentions comes down 1000+ years after Jesus returns because you see the day of the Lord as being 1000 years. How can that be in light of what Peter wrote about the day of the Lord?

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

Notice that Peter says the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. You have yet to explain how your understanding of this passage lines up with that. Can you please do that? How will the day of the Lord come as a thief in the night in your view?

Also, in regards to the fiery destruction that he describes, Peter tells his readers that in response to that, they "ought to live holy and godly lives" as they look forward to that day. Why would he tell them that if the destruction he described couldn't possibly affect them (since it wouldn't happen until 1000+ years after Jesus returns)? That makes no sense. Instead, it only makes sense that he would tell them that if it was possible for that destruction to come in their lifetimes. Please address this.

Jamdoc said:
I don't avoid 2 Peter 3 at all.
I place it at Revelation 20:9.

So do Amils. But, you have the day of the Lord starting 1000+ years before that. Peter does not. As I indicated above, Peter warned his readers that the destruction he described could occur in their lifetimes which completely contradicts your claim that it would not occur until 1000+ years after Christ returns.

One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Similar threads