Ammillennial Return of Christ: by Dr. Sam Storms

[BABerean2]

Graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, and former Dispensationalist, Dr. Sam Storms explains the Ammillennial understanding of the Second Coming of Christ.

Dr. Storms book "Kingdom Come", is an excellent resource for those who want the truth on this issue.

.

 

[keras]

The Amill belief is a direct contradiction of plainly stated Bible teachings.
There WILL be a 1000 year reign of King Jesus; it is His reward. Luke 13:32

 

[sovereigngrace]

The Amill belief is a direct contradiction of plainly stated Bible teachings.
There WILL be a 1000 year reign of King Jesus; it is His reward. Luke 13:32

Watch the video and embrace the truth.

 

[BABerean2]

The Amill belief is a direct contradiction of plainly stated Bible teachings.
There WILL be a 1000 year reign of King Jesus; it is His reward. Luke 13:32

You believe life on this world, where sin and death remain for 1,000 years after the Second Coming of Christ is our "reward", rather than life in the New Heavens and New Earth Peter was looking for in 2 Peter 3:10-13, which is also the promised land in Hebrews 11:15-16...

Do you know how many cults are built around the Premill doctrine?

.

 

[DavidPT]

Graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, and former Dispensationalist, Dr. Sam Storms explains the Ammillennial understanding of the Second Coming of Christ.

Dr. Storms book "Kingdom Come", is an excellent resource for those who want the truth on this issue.

.

8 minutes or so into the video he is already contradicting Revelation 20 by indicating that the millennium continues until Christ returns. Assuming the millennium has been the past 1990 years like he proposes, there is still a little season after the millennium, and when it's the time of the little season it is no longer still the time of the millennium. Some people listening to his video might take it to mean Christ returns at the beginning of satan's little season. I'm not implying SS is meaning that, or at least I don't think he is, but that someone else might think he is when they see that the millennium has an end, then there is a little season that follows it, but that SS is saying the millennium continues until Christ returns.

 

[keras]

Watch the video and embrace the truth.

Read the Bible and believe the truth.

 

[5thKingdom]

The Amill belief is a direct contradiction of plainly stated Bible teachings.
There WILL be a 1000 year reign of King Jesus; it is His reward. Luke 13:32

Luk 13:32
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold,
I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow,
and the third day I shall be perfected.

--------

I fail to see how Luke 13:32 shows the 1000 year period
when Satan is "bound" or some "reward" for Jesus at
His Return.

Secondly, the Amillennial position was the position of the
earliest disciples [2 Thess 2] as all the early Saints thought
Christ's Return was imminent. It was also the position
of the Catholic church since around 400AD and it was the
position of most of the Protestant Reformers...

So, for you to say it's a "direct contradiction" only shows
(a) that you take the 1000 years to be literal instead of
spiritual and (b) you do not believe the destruction of the
fourth Beast/Kingdom is followed by the Eternal Kingdom
as is "plainly stated" in Daniel 7 (and DOZENS of other
passages) and (c) you show complete disrespect for the
doctrines of the church for the first 1800 years while
Pentecostalism did not even begin until the 1900's.

The REASON Saints preached the AMillennial position
for so long is (a) they understood Satan was "bound"
at the Cross and (b) they understood the 1000 yrs was
not a literal time and (c) they understood the 1000 yrs
was the church age and (d) they understood that the
ETERNAL Kingdom begins when the Fourth Beast
(aka Revelation Beast) is destroyed.

This does not even mention the FACT that Satan is
"loosened" at the START of the Great Tribulation or
Revelation Beast or Fourth Kingdom/Beast... since
Satan is "loosened" at the beginning of the 1st Woe
or the Fifth Trumpet or the FIRST Revelation Beast
he could not be "bound" AFTER the Revelation Beast.
This is not that hard.

Question:
If Satan is "loosened" at the START of the Revelation Beast
[Rev 9:1] then HOW can he be "bound" when Christ Returns?
at the END of the Beast? Il await your answer on this question.


/

 

[DavidPT]

Secondly, the Amillennial position was the position of the
earliest disciples [2 Thess 2] as all the early Saints thought
Christ's Return was imminent. It was also the position
of the Catholic church since around 400AD and it was the
position of most of the Protestant Reformers...

Was Revelation already written by that time? If it wasn't, how could there even be any such thing as Amil or even Premil until Revelation was written first, since both positions are based on how the thousand years should be interpreted?

 

[5thKingdom]

Was Revelation already written by that time? If it wasn't, how could there even be any such thing as Amil or even Premil until Revelation was written first, since both positions are based on how the thousand years should be interpreted?

The point is not whether Revelation was written... the point is the earliest Christians
expected the Lord's Return was imminent as shown in 2 Thess 2. The later church,
around 400AD, took the A-Millennial position, as did most Protestant Reformers.

The larger point (of course) is the Bible teaches that Satan is "loosened" at the
BEGINNING of the Revelation Beast [Rev 9] so clearly he was not "bound" at the
END of the Revelation Beast (which is the doctrine of the "golden age" heresy)

Since the ETERNAL Kingdom is established when the Fourth Beast (Revelation Beast)
is destroyed they are forced to deal with the "binding" issue mentioned above AND
with the doctrine that SINNERS or on earth during the "Kingdom of God"...
and the Bible is clear flesh and blood (or sinners) cannot enter the "Kingdom of God".

/

 

[DavidPT]

The point is not whether Revelation was written... the point is the earliest Christians
expected the Lord's Return was imminent as shown in 2 Thess 2. The later church,
around 400AD, took the A-Millennial position, as did most Protestant Reformers.

And they were clearly wrong to think that, and that Paul straightened them out on that wrong thinking since he indicated that coming can't even happen unless there come a falling away first, and that the man of sin be revealed. And I am pretty confident Paul wasn't ignorant of some of the things Jesus said during the Discourse. Jesus spoke of a future AOD(abomination of desolation) that would lead to the great tribulation which would have to happen before Jesus could even return. There is no way in a million years that Paul ever thought Jesus could return at any moment during his lifetime unless he first saw that an AOD and a falling away had already occurred, which he apparently never did. And is not 2 Thessalonians 2 involving this same AOD Jesus was referring to in the Discourse?

Some of you, via your interpretations need to quit giving the impression saints such as Paul were fools back then, and that they thought Jesus could return at any moment, even before what He declared in the Discourse that must happen first, before He can even return.

 

[5thKingdom]

And they were clearly wrong to think that, and that Paul straightened them out on that wrong thinking since he indicated that coming can't even happen unless there come a falling away first, and that the man of sin be revealed. And I am pretty confident Paul wasn't ignorant of some of the things Jesus said during the Discourse. Jesus spoke of a future AOD(abomination of desolation) that would lead to the great tribulation which would have to happen before Jesus could even return. There is no way in a million years that Paul ever thought Jesus could return at any moment during his lifetime unless he first saw that an AOD and a falling away had already occurred, which he apparently never did. And is not 2 Thessalonians 2 involving this same AOD Jesus was referring to in the Discourse?

Some of you, via your interpretations need to quit giving the impression saints such as Paul were fools back then, and that they thought Jesus could return at any moment, even before what He declared in the Discourse that must happen first, before He can even return.

--------

Paul did tell them the falling-away and Man of Sin must happen FIRST
But the early Saints clearly thought the Lord's Return was imminent
As did the Saints around 400AD and most Reformers.

And that is the point... Paul and the earliest Christians did not know
WHEN the Man of Sin or Daniel's Abomination would occur.
They did not know how long the Great Tribulation was.
But they clearly thought His Return was soon.

Same with the church around 400AD
The Reformers actually thought those prophecies were fulfilled
(by the RCC and Pope) and they believed His Return was imminent.

This is all documented in the writings of early Reformers
If I am not mistaken Calvin thought the Pope was the Anti-Christ.

The POINT is the idea of Satan being "bound" at the END of the Revelation Beast
is nonsensical because he is "loosened" at the BEGINNING of the Beast [Rev 9]
This REALLY is not hard to understand.


/

 

[5thKingdom]

Some of you, via your interpretations need to quit giving the impression saints such as Paul were fools back then, and that they thought Jesus could return at any moment, even before what He declared in the Discourse that must happen first, before He can even return.

How long did Paul think the Great Tribulation lasted?
Many today say 3.5 years or 7 years... is that not soon enough for you?

My argument was simply that the A-Millennial position is the TRADITIONAL position
of the early Saints and the Saints in 400AD and most of the Protestant Reformers

My argument was directed to a comment that the A-Millennial position was not Biblical.
When Saints have taken the A-Millennial position from the START of the church until
this very day.

I believe you are not A-Millennial.
Do you believe (as so many do) that Satan is "loosened" at the END of the Revelation Beast?
Or do you understand Satan was "loosened" at the START of the Revelation Beast [Rev 9]


.

 

[keras]

Luk 13:32
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold,
I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow,
and the third day I shall be perfected.

I fail to see how Luke 13:32 shows the 1000 year period
when Satan is "bound" or some "reward" for Jesus at
His Return.

Luke 13:32.....Listen, I tell you today and tomorrow, I shall be driving out demons and working cures, on the third day I shall receive My reward. REBible
Then in verse 33, Jesus says; at the end of the next three actual days, He will meet His death.
Obviously then; verse 32 is a prophecy, easily understood using the 1 day in heaven equaling 1000 earth years, as two witnesses tell us. Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8
The 2000 years since He commenced His ministry until He Returns, then the reward of reigning as King over the earth. Psalms 110:2-3
The word 'perfected' in your version, does not ally with Crucifixion. Reward is the correct translation.
This verse, plus Hosea 6:2, blows the Amil nonsense out of the water.

Question:
If Satan is "loosened" at the START of the Revelation Beast
[Rev 9:1] then HOW can he be "bound" when Christ Returns?
at the END of the Beast? Il await your answer on this question.

I regard this question as somewhat dumb, as the Bible does plainly tell us for this Church age, Satan is prowling around like a roaring lion, devouring all he can with his lies.
So Satan is 'loosed' now and when Jesus returns, he will be bound. Rev 20:1-3

 

[DavidPT]

Question:
If Satan is "loosened" at the START of the Revelation Beast
[Rev 9:1] then HOW can he be "bound" when Christ Returns?
at the END of the Beast? Il await your answer on this question.


/

There is no proof that that is also when satan is loosed. Your argument is based on something not even proven. If it could be undeniably proved that satan emerges from the pit when the locusts do, then of course one would have to conclude Amil rather than Premil in that case.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, and former Dispensationalist, Dr. Sam Storms explains the Ammillennial understanding of the Second Coming of Christ.

An interesting interview.

When the interviewer asked Dr Storms to share about his “migration” from Disp. to Amil, he attributed it to a couple of names, Robert Gundry and George Eldon Ladd. I remember well when I got Ladds book, ‘The Blessed Hope.’ It literally demolished my early thinking on eschatology.

Actually Ladd is a Historic Pre-mil, and for me, I don’t think I could have made the complete jump to Amil without doing it in a couple of stages. Historic pre-mil provided that bridge.

I would recommend anyone get that book if they wanted to think through some of these things.

 

[BABerean2]

An interesting interview.

When the interviewer asked Dr Storms to share about his “migration” from Disp. to Amil, he attributed it to a couple of names, Robert Gundry and George Eldon Ladd. I remember well when I got Ladds book, ‘The Blessed Hope.’ It literally demolished my early thinking on eschatology.

Actually Ladd is a Historic Pre-mil, and for me, I don’t think I could have made the complete jump to Amil without doing it in a couple of stages. Historic pre-mil provided that bridge.

I would recommend anyone get that book if they wanted to think through some of these things.

The following does an excellent job of presenting the principle of "Recapitulation" in the Book of Revelation.
After I came to understand this principle the Book of Revelation finally made sense to me. It also caused the Premill doctrine to fall apart.

.

 

[sovereigngrace]

An interesting interview.

When the interviewer asked Dr Storms to share about his “migration” from Disp. to Amil, he attributed it to a couple of names, Robert Gundry and George Eldon Ladd. I remember well when I got Ladds book, ‘The Blessed Hope.’ It literally demolished my early thinking on eschatology.

Actually Ladd is a Historic Pre-mil, and for me, I don’t think I could have made the complete jump to Amil without doing it in a couple of stages. Historic pre-mil provided that bridge.

I would recommend anyone get that book if they wanted to think through some of these things.

I agree. I made that same journey.

 

[YeshuaFan]

How long did Paul think the Great Tribulation lasted?
Many today say 3.5 years or 7 years... is that not soon enough for you?

My argument was simply that the A-Millennial position is the TRADITIONAL position
of the early Saints and the Saints in 400AD and most of the Protestant Reformers

My argument was directed to a comment that the A-Millennial position was not Biblical.
When Saints have taken the A-Millennial position from the START of the church until
this very day.

I believe you are not A-Millennial.
Do you believe (as so many do) that Satan is "loosened" at the END of the Revelation Beast?
Or do you understand Satan was "loosened" at the START of the Revelation Beast [Rev 9]


.

The position held by many of the ECF though was historical premil, as A Mil really was not the dominant position until Augustine made it popularize as he saw the Roman Church as the Kingdom of God!

 

[BABerean2]

The position held by many of the ECF though was historical premil, as A Mil really was not the dominant position until Augustine made it popularize as he saw the Roman Church as the Kingdom of God!

Did the Early Church Fathers find any mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46?

Did they explain how mortals could survive the "flaming fire" at the return of Christ in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10?

Did they explain why Peter was looking for the New Heavens and the New Earth in 2 Peter 3:10-13?

Did they find another promised land in Galatians 4:25-26, and Hebrews 11:15-16, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and Revelation 3:12?

Did they find a way to force the Book of Revelation into a chronological order, despite the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:18, and Christ returning as a thief at Armageddon in Revelation 16:15-16?

Did they say God has not bound wicked angels in any manner, despite what we find in Jude 1:6?

.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The position held by many of the ECF though was historical premil, as A Mil really was not the dominant position until Augustine made it popularize as he saw the Roman Church as the Kingdom of God!

And where is your evidence of this? How many manuscripts have you read and how many years have you undertaken reading those ancient docs? Or are you like most Premils who just repeat what they have been taught by those who who just repeat what they have been taught?