Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[Timtofly]

Amil is not only the biblical truth but also the preeminent eschatological position for 2000 years. The founders of early Premil were mainly heretics.

Yes and the RCC was considered a harlot. Just because converted pagan philosophers claim amill to be an important theology does not make it one. If you base your belief on human theology, and claim verses to prove your point, that does not make it God's Word.

We are to proclaim the Word of God, not human theology.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

You advance a lot of opinion in your posts as facts. You state them with zero evidence. That does not cut it in discussion forums. Where is your evidence? Where is your research. All i see you quoting is websites you find online. This is a common (but questionable) Premil practice. This was one of the reasons I started to research this as a Premil. The evidence simply didn't line up. Which ECFs believed what you believe as a Premil today? I am happy to present the Amil fathers with attached beliefs if you do.

100 years of modern theology in America does not represent the whole world at this time. 1900 years of mainly Amil doctrine is not negated by 100 years of Dispensational preeminence in America.

Evidence is documented on over 220 posts of this thread. We all know you don't agree, but claiming there was no evidence giving isn't accurate.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The opposite is the truth. Premil is a non-corroborative doctrine. It emanates from a false literal reading of one passage in Scripture and a faulty chronological approach to Revelation. Take that away and Premil has nothing.

You make a lot of wild assumptions about Revelation being not literal and not chronological, without a picogram of evidence to back that up.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Pastors: The end of the world is complicated

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

"Amillennialism was popularized in the 400’s by Augustine (AD 354–430) and his book the City of God. Consequently, Augustine is called the “father of amillennialism.”[iWith his influence and others, amillennialism became the majority view throughout much of church history and is still held by many today. It is the standard view of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox churches, and Reformed churches."
https://www.pgregbrown.com/single-post/eschatology-series-survey-of-eschatological-views

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The Rejection of Amillennialism and Development of Postmillennialism – Israel My Glory

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

As for anything but Amillenialism being unscriptural, this study suggests otherwise:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=pretrib_arch

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The opposite is the truth. Premil is a non-corroborative doctrine. It emanates from a false literal reading of one passage in Scripture and a faulty chronological approach to Revelation. Take that away and Premil has nothing.

The entire bible is filled with premillennialism. You can't escape it no matter where you run. Daniel, Ezekial, the Lord in the Olivet Discourse, Paul in 1 Thessalonians, and John in Revelation, all point to the coming tribulation and back up premillennialism views as best as I can see.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Evidence is documented on over 220 posts of this thread. We all know you don't agree, but claiming there was no evidence giving isn't accurate.

What do i not agree with?

 

[sovereigngrace]

View attachment 300754
Pastors: The end of the world is complicated

What does your chart prove? That 64% of Protestant pastors today are not Pretrib. Most of us are aware that people are moving away from Pretrib in vast numbers. What would it matter (any way) if it was 64% the other way? That proves nothing. It seems like popularity is what you base your beliefs on. That is wrong!

You dismiss other peoples doctrines as unbiblical yet you refuse to outline what you believe from Scripture. That is not fair. Are you a Pretrib, Posttrib, Mid-trib or Prewrath Futurist? What is more, when you dismiss other doctrines you fail to furnish us with biblical evidence for why. Your responses tend to be links you have read. That is totally inadmissible and unacceptable. We are here to discuss with fellow-posters not your outside links.

If you are confident in your position, I am willing to engage with you on the subject of end-times, the tribulation, the millennium and Revelation 20 by starting a thread or threads, if you are up for the challenge to explore what position abides the sacred pages. But let’s keep the outside links out of it. Let use the Bible as our source.

For the record, my own personal journey for truth has taken me from Pretrib/Premil to Posttrib/Premil to Posttrib/Amil.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The entire bible is filled with premillennialism. You can't escape it no matter where you run. Daniel, Ezekial, the Lord in the Olivet Discourse, Paul in 1 Thessalonians, and John in Revelation, all point to the coming tribulation and back up premillennialism views as best as I can see.

Really? If you are so confident, are you willing to engage on a new thread to show the readers on this board if what you are saying is correct or if it is mere partisan words?

 

[sovereigngrace]

As for anything but Amillenialism being unscriptural, this study suggests otherwise:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=pretrib_arch

I am not interested in outside links. This seems to be how you arrive at what you believe. We could all do this. We all have multiple sites we could point people to. That would be lazy for me to do that and show a severe lack in my position.

 

[DavidPT]

The entire bible is filled with premillennialism. You can't escape it no matter where you run. Daniel, Ezekial, the Lord in the Olivet Discourse, Paul in 1 Thessalonians, and John in Revelation, all point to the coming tribulation and back up premillennialism views as best as I can see.

And not only that, Revelation 20:4 alone already undeniably proves Premil, well except to Amils of course. According to that verse there are already saints that have been martyred for refusing to worship the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands, before satan is even released from the pit. In order for that martyrdom to be possible, a beast has to ascend out of the sea first, where one of it's head has a deadly wound and is healed, and another out of the earth, meaning the false prophet. Until the false prophet is on the scene, in the meantime there are not yet any saints being martyred for refusing his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands.

Obviously, that requires that the beast can't be in the pit when they are initially martyred. Amil doesn't even have the beast coming out of the pit until the thousand years finish first. How then does one explain there are already martyrs of this beast before the thousand years even end? The only way to explain it, the beast ascends out of the pit before the thousand years even begin, obviously. During the thousand years, satan is then cast into the pit for causing mass deception via the beast and false prophet. These two are instead cast into the LOF at the beginning of the thousand years, thus can't possibly ascend out of the pit post the thousand years like some Amils claim. This is clearly Premil, not Amil. Only Premil will work with any of this.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

What does your chart prove? That 64% of Protestant pastors today are not Pretrib. Most of us are aware that people are moving away from Pretrib in vast numbers. What would it matter (any way) if it was 64% the other way? That proves nothing. It seems like popularity is what you base your beliefs on. That is wrong!

You dismiss other peoples doctrines as unbiblical yet you refuse to outline what you believe from Scripture. That is not fair. Are you a Pretrib, Posttrib, Mid-trib or Prewrath Futurist? What is more, when you dismiss other doctrines you fail to furnish us with biblical evidence for why. Your responses tend to be links you have read. That is totally inadmissible and unacceptable. We are here to discuss with fellow-posters not your outside links.

If you are confident in your position, I am willing to engage with you on the subject of end-times, the tribulation, the millennium and Revelation 20 by starting a thread or threads, if you are up for the challenge to explore what position abides the sacred pages. But let’s keep the outside links out of it. Let use the Bible as our source.

For the record, my own personal journey for truth has taken me from Pretrib/Premil to Posttrib/Premil to Posttrib/Amil.

That premillenialism is the number one most common view among the group surveyed and apparently none or 8% believe in Amillenialism in this group.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

What do i not agree with?

How can I read your mind to answer such a question?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Really? If you are so confident, are you willing to engage on a new thread to show the readers on this board if what you are saying is correct or if it is mere partisan words?

I am not finished studying the topic but once I am sure I'll be glad to debate this topic but it might need to be in another subforum so we'll have to find the right location when the time is right.

 

[Christian Gedge]

The entire bible is filled with premillennialism. You can't escape it no matter where you run. Daniel, Ezekial, the Lord in the Olivet Discourse, Paul in 1 Thessalonians, and John in Revelation, all point to the coming tribulation and back up premillennialism views as best as I can see.

Hang on. Amil (except of the preterist variety) realises there will be a last days tribulation. We identify it as the little season of Satan (Rev 20:3)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I think that is a stretch to claim Amillenialism has been the defacto position for 2000 years. At least since 1900 it has fallen into a minority opinion based on the research i've found, and there was a lot of early church followers of a future millennial and not amillenial interpretation of Revelation.

And I personally find biblical support for Amilleniailism to be weak.

If that's the case then I'm sure you would have no trouble explaining to me how passages like 2 Peter 3:3-13 and Matthew 25:31-46 can be reconciled with Premillenialism. Can you please do that?

I am not finished studying the topic but once I am sure I'll be glad to debate this topic but it might need to be in another subforum so we'll have to find the right location when the time is right.

You're not finished studying the topic but you still felt like you could say that the biblical support for Amillennialism is weak. Shouldn't you wait until you're done studying the topic before making claims like that?

 

[sovereigngrace]

That premillenialism is the number one most common view among the group surveyed and apparently none or 8% believe in Amillenialism in this group.

Maybe i am missing something, where does the chart record Amil or Premil? It is talking about their trib view from what I can see. We can do a survey here on this board to dispel your bias real quick. Amil is rising everywhere you go. Check out any open online forum. Talk to young pastors. Premil is in decline. The Bible colleges are also going in the direction of Amil. New Calvinism has helped push people that way.

Did you talk to these Pastors? When did the 8% say that? I am amongst the Posttribs. Many Amils are.

The only thing you are proving by these comments is your own lack of objectivity here and your own bias.

 

[sovereigngrace]

How can I read your mind to answer such a question?

You made a statement and then avoided my enquiry. Hmmm!!!

You made the sweeping false accusation:

Evidence is documented on over 220 posts of this thread. We all know you don't agree, but claiming there was no evidence giving isn't accurate.