Main Problems w "A" or "Post" Millenialism?

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

The above applies not to the thousand years but to the new earth. We know this because it speaks of both God the father and the son reining together over the earth, and we know that God the father does not take the kingdom until the time of Jesus return.

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

This is also the end of the thousand year reign because as the very next verse tells us

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Therefore we know for certain that your verse above, Revelation 11:15, refers to the end of the thousand year reign, when the eternal reign begins.

Christ never reigns alone, and only reigns at the right hand of the Father. He is not seen, ever, as reigning alone. And it is the Father who puts all of his enemies under his feet.

Jesus does reign in Heaven, before he reigns on earth, but his reign on earth does not begin until it says it begins, at the blowing of the last trumpet, the Seventh Trumpet of Revelation.

Yes, but notice that it does not say Jesus reigns on earth during this time, only that he reigns. That is the big assumption that premillenialists always make and it's not right to insert words into scripture. The text says only that he reigns, not that he reigns on earth.

It does state that 'the kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of God and Christ', at the blowing of the Seventh Trumpet.

This certainly does imply the kingdom of the world was not previously the Kingdom of God and Christ, nor the Kingdom of Christ (without the Father).

You have to insert in that Christ has spiritually returned in order to believe the Millennium has already begun. This way has to be a way which is different then the way Christ was already reigning in the hearts of believers, which has been the case since the Spirit has been given to believers. Unless you believe that the 'reign of Christ' began on earth, when the Spirit was given to them?

I don't see this as requiring or even implying that the beast and false prophet are already destroyed. I don't believe that happens until after the thousand years.

Revelation 20, with the words pertaining to 'the Beast', highlighted:


20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] 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. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.


Why, on earth, would this be mentioned, if the 'beast' had not come already, before the Millennium, or, to give you an allowance, during the Millennium?

Why, for this matter, does it even matter, that one should profess a believe 'the Millennium has already come'? Why would they have bothered to give this revelation, at all, if they were just going to say that the saints were reigning with Christ since the Spirit was given? Simply to justify the reigning which has been going on, through such vehicles as 'the Catholic Church' and 'the Holy Roman Empire'? If that is the case, then why, on earth, mention the 'the beast', at all?

If, during that time, the 'beast' has not even come yet?

I do believe Satan has been "locked up" although I admit the phrase "deceive the nations" is a tough one to reconcile. I believe that Satan has been spiritually bound by Christ, as he said in Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

And I believe that we, through Christ, have that same power (meaning we reign with Him). Non believers do not have that power over Satan which is why he is still able to deceive them.



Revelation 12 describes the time when Satan was cast out of heaven and I believe this happened when Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago, as Jesus himself said in Luke 10:18

He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

I wonder if this falling from heaven also has something to do with his binding, in the sense that he no longer can accuse us before the throne.

When Jesus said that he saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning, he was seeing the future.

Like, when Jesus said 'now is the prince of this world driven out of the Kingdom', he was speaking of, Satan already having worked through Judas, who had already betrayed him, but he was also speaking of Satan being condemned for being 'the one above' Pontius Pilate's head, who was most responsible for Jesus' murder. (It certainly was a murder, as he was and is, an innocent man.)

Pontius Pilate suspected this, but Satan knew this. So, Satan was most responsible and most liable for the murder of Jesus Christ.

Satan was driven out of the kingdom on earth, which is spiritually, 'The Church', not a specific church, but The Church as The Bride, all believers who are of one Spirit.

However, in what way, as were they not continually murdered by Satan and persecuted by the world, even to this very day?

I do have an answer for that, but this is not really relevant. What is more important is to consider, 'why on earth must the Millennium be claimed as having already started, even long ago', if there is no reason for it to be argued?

I am not seeing any reason, from what you - or really, others - are saying, to claim it has begun.

Simply because the Catholic Church and Augustine argues it has already begun? That makes no sense.

I mean, why? What is the need for claiming the Millennium has already begun?

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

You misunderstand my point. I too believe God has not yet restored everything. My point is that the restoration of all things is the new heaven and new earth. No other time fits that description more perfectly. Therefore, since Jesus does not return until that time, Jesus does not return until after the thousand years. That is my point. And that point supports amillenialism.

Acts 3:21
Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

To be clear, that is to @LastSeven , not me. (The rendering was to me, though I do see LastSeven linked to, above. The web system has this as a quote to me, though it links to his post.)

Elijah is the one who restored all things, and that ministry was complete through his work as John the Baptist.

Jesus did state 'Elijah does come and restores all things', as if this is yet to be. But, he was merely addressing 'what people believe' there. He, himself, believed 'Elijah has already come'.

 

[LastSeven]

If Jesus is already reigning on earth, then you have to be arguing the 'kingdom of the world' is reigned by Christ alone, and not by Christ at the right hand of the Father.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Currently Christ rules alone. If it were not so then he wouldn't have to hand over the kingdom to God the father when the end comes. God the Father would already have the kingdom.

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Coincidentally, this same verse tells that Christ's reign ends at that time, as he only reigns until he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

 

[LastSeven]

To be clear, that is to @LastSeven , not me. (The rendering was to me, though I do see LastSeven linked to, above. The web system has this as a quote to me, though it links to his post.)

Elijah is the one who restored all things, and that ministry was complete through his work as John the Baptist.

Jesus did state 'Elijah does come and restores all things', as if this is yet to be. But, he was merely addressing 'what people believe' there. He, himself, believed 'Elijah has already come'.

Jesus was referring to John the baptist, but clearly all things were not restored at that time, or Acts 3:21, which was written many years after John the baptist, would not be referring to a still future time.

I believe he was referring to the time mentioned in Revelation 21:5
Behold, I make all things new.

 

[LastSeven]

I am not seeing any reason, from what you - or really, others - are saying, to claim it has begun.

Simply because the Catholic Church and Augustine argues it has already begun? That makes no sense.

I mean, why? What is the need for claiming the Millennium has already begun?

I'm not sure I understand your question. There is no "need" to claim the millennium has already begun unless it is true. If you're asking why I believe it then I can list several reasons (and no the RCC and Augustine have nothing to do with it), but I'm not sure that's what you're asking.

 

[LastSeven]

Christ never reigns alone, and only reigns at the right hand of the Father. He is not seen, ever, as reigning alone. And it is the Father who puts all of his enemies under his feet.

Revelation 21:3
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Look. This verse describing the time of the new heaven and new earth proves that God the father does not currently reign over his kingdom, because we are not currently his people and he is not currently our God (strictly speaking). We will be his people, and he will be our God, when Jesus hands over the kingdom to God the father.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

When the Kingdom of Christ is over this entire Earth, when all manmade kingdom sand religions are put down, and ONLY Jesus is seen as the Lord, than we have entered into messianic Age!

There is simply no reason to wrest the Millennium out of context.

Jesus reigns, on earth, with the Kingdom, during the thousand year reign. Death is defeated, finally, at the end of that reign. 'God puts all enemies under His feet, and he must reign until the last enemy is defeated'. 'When that last enemy is defeated', after the Millennium, 'then he hands over the Kingdom to God, so God may be all in all'.

Jesus does not reign alone, but reigns at the right hand of the Father.

There is no time which Jesus reigns alone, not at the right hand of the Father.

Why believe that the Millennium has already begun? There is no reason for that.

Why, for that matter, call the 'Messianic Age', as something different then the 'Millennium', after all, a term for the Millennium is an Age, an Epoch?

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, but notice that it does not say Jesus reigns on earth during this time, only that he reigns. That is the big assumption that premillenialists always make and it's not right to insert words into scripture. The text says only that he reigns, not that he reigns on earth.

Yet, don't Amils, or at least most Amils if not all, do pretty much the same? Are they not inserting words into the Scriptures when they claim He reigns from heaven? Where does it mention anything about the reign being in heaven? If it doesn't, then for Amil to to be fair about this, maybe Amil shouldn't criticize Premil for some of the same things Amil does itself.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


The text does not say---and they lived and reigned with Christ in heaven a thousand years. Nor does the text say---and they lived and reigned with Christ on the earth a thousand years.

So why is it not ok for Premil to try and deduce that the reign likely means on the earth though the text doesn't come right out and say so, but it is ok for Amil to do that though, deduce that the reigning has to do with Christ in heaven and not Christ on the earth, even though the text does not say that either?

BTW, what does Amil make of this part---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them?

What exactly is that referring to and when is it meaning? Very rarely, if at all, do Amils seem to want to discuss this part.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Currently Christ rules alone. If it were not so then he wouldn't have to hand over the kingdom to God the father when the end comes. God the Father would already have the kingdom.

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Coincidentally, this same verse tells that Christ's reign ends at that time, as he only reigns until he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

IMO though, it is only certain aspects of His reigning that ends, and not that He literally quits reigning altogether. Anything having to do with judgment, death, etc, these aspects of His reigning ends when He hands over the kingdom to His Father, since judgment will no longer be needed at some point. None of this can precede the great white throne judgment then, and I'm assuming you at least likely agree with the latter here. The question is, when does the great white throne judgment initially take place? Some argue that it's at the 2nd coming. Others argue it is a thousand years and a little season post the 2nd coming.

 

[BABerean2]

So why is it not ok for Premil to try and deduce that the reign likely means on the earth though the text doesn't come right out and say so, but it is ok for Amil to do that though, deduce that the reigning has to do with Christ in heaven and not Christ on the earth, even though the text does not say that either?

The answer is simple.

Multiple other passages in the New Testament prove that there is no 1,000 year reign with mortals living on the planet, after the Second Coming of Christ.

Matthew 25:31-46

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10

2 Timothy 4:1

Revelation 11:15-18

We also know that based on Revelation 16:15-16, and Revelation 19, the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.
Instead, it is a series of overlapping visions.

We also find "the time of the judgment of the dead", with "reward" for some, and "destruction" for others in Revelation 11:18, and also at the end of chapter 20.

The premill doctrine does not work, without ignoring multiple passages of scripture.
However, its proponents keep going back to the Old Testament to try to make it work...

.

 

[LastSeven]

Yet, don't Amils, or at least most Amils if not all, do pretty much the same? Are they not inserting words into the Scriptures when they claim He reigns from heaven? Where does it mention anything about the reign being in heaven? If it doesn't, then for Amil to to be fair about this, maybe Amil shouldn't criticize Premil for some of the same things Amil does itself.

Not the same thing. Amils don't misquote Revelation 20 by saying "they came to life and reigned spiritually with Christ in heaven". We only quote exactly what it says and use other scriptures to determine where he currently reigns from.

Premils on the other hand always misquote Revelation 20 by saying "they came to life and reigned physically with Christ on earth". You literally use Revelation 20 to prove your position and it doesn't even say what you're trying to prove.

BTW, what does Amil make of this part---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them?

What exactly is that referring to and when is it meaning? Very rarely, if at all, do Amils seem to want to discuss this part.

It means the saints were given authority to rule and judge, just like Christ. The following scriptures support this.

1 Corinthians 6:1-3
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Ephesians 2:4-6
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

 

[LastSeven]

Anything having to do with judgment, death, etc, these aspects of His reigning ends when He hands over the kingdom to His Father, since judgment will no longer be needed at some point. None of this can precede the great white throne judgment then...

I'm not sure I follow. What can not precede the throne judgement? The end of his reign?

 

[DavidPT]

I'm not sure I follow. What can not precede the throne judgement? The end of his reign?

Yes, meaning when He hands over the kingdom to His father. And since it is assumed by most, that Jesus is the one the dead are standing in front of at the GWTJ, and that this obviously has to do with judgment, Jesus would still be reigning in the same sense He is reigning before He hands over the kingdom to the Father. After the GWTJ though, He no longer needs to reign where that might involve judgment. Therefore, the end meant in 1 Cor 15, can't precede the GWTJ.

 

[DavidPT]

The answer is simple.

Multiple other passages in the New Testament prove that there is no 1,000 year reign with mortals living on the planet, after the Second Coming of Christ.

Matthew 25:31-46

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10

2 Timothy 4:1

Revelation 11:15-18

We also know that based on Revelation 16:15-16, and Revelation 19, the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.
Instead, it is a series of overlapping visions.

We also find "the time of the judgment of the dead", with "reward" for some, and "destruction" for others in Revelation 11:18, and also at the end of chapter 20.

The premill doctrine does not work, without ignoring multiple passages of scripture.
However, its proponents keep going back to the Old Testament to try to make it work...

.

The OT is Scripture, but apparently you have already ripped the OT out of your Bible since you tend to think only the NT is relevant and not the OT as well. There are plenty of Scriptures in the OT showing that there is far more to some of these things than meets the eye. One can't determine the full truth of these things from just one testament alone.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yet, don't Amils, or at least most Amils if not all, do pretty much the same? Are they not inserting words into the Scriptures when they claim He reigns from heaven? Where does it mention anything about the reign being in heaven? If it doesn't, then for Amil to to be fair about this, maybe Amil shouldn't criticize Premil for some of the same things Amil does itself.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


The text does not say---and they lived and reigned with Christ in heaven a thousand years. Nor does the text say---and they lived and reigned with Christ on the earth a thousand years.

So why is it not ok for Premil to try and deduce that the reign likely means on the earth though the text doesn't come right out and say so, but it is ok for Amil to do that though, deduce that the reigning has to do with Christ in heaven and not Christ on the earth, even though the text does not say that either?

BTW, what does Amil make of this part---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them?

What exactly is that referring to and when is it meaning? Very rarely, if at all, do Amils seem to want to discuss this part.

The first resurrection will be at the time of the time of the Second Coming for the redeemed, Second resurrection at end of 1000 years , for the lost... many Amils seem to see the first resurrection as being the time when born again?

 

[LastSeven]

Yes, meaning when He hands over the kingdom to His father. And since it is assumed by most, that Jesus is the one the dead are standing in front of at the GWTJ, and that this obviously has to do with judgment, Jesus would still be reigning in the same sense He is reigning before He hands over the kingdom to the Father. After the GWTJ though, He no longer needs to reign where that might involve judgment. Therefore, the end meant in 1 Cor 15, can't precede the GWTJ.

Maybe, maybe not. I all happens around the same time anyway. Paul doesn't specifically say that the handing over of the kingdom is before or after the judgment, but then that's because he doesn't mention the judgment in 1 Cor 15. Maybe Jesus does judge after handing over the kingdom, or maybe he hands it over right after the judgment. Either way, it all happens around the same time, not 1000 years apart.

 

[parousia70]

The text in Revelation is very clear for pre-millenialism, at this time. When the Millennium comes, then, that will not be the case.

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

That seems far less "clear" a case for premillennialism to me than it does to you.

If they have not happened, then Satan has been deceiving the nations, and the kingdom of the world has been under the dominion of Satan.....So, Christ can not rule on an earth which is Satan's dominion. And Satan deceives people while it is his dominion.

Jesus said: Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

In 180 degree contrast to this scripture, you appear to be saying "NO, that is wrong...Jesus does not have All authority on earth today, Satan Does."

So Help me out here.....Did Matthew Misquote Jesus here? Perhaps you believe Jesus was Mistaken to claim ALL authority on earth belonged to Him and no one else?

Please exegete Matthew 28:18 for us, since you don't seem to believe it means what it says, and tell us what it really means instead?

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

That seems far less "clear" a case for premillennialism to me than it does to you.

John said 'it is the last hour'. This is one very long 'last hour'.

And, John is right. It has been the 'last hour' this entire time. Until the 'mystery of God' is revealed to Heaven, anyway.

I can not help but see a double standard, here. You are saying the Millennium has already come, and a lot of the events of Revelation - at least depicted in the text - which happen before the Millennium, has not come yet. Correct?

I do not take that viewpoint, I believe a lot of the events depicted in Revelation before the Millennium is depicted have already happened. Some have happened many centuries ago.

Some of the events which Jesus prophesied would happen, did happen. Just a few decades later.

Plenty of the events depicted in Revelation you do not believe have happened yet.

Or, do you? For all I know you could be a full preterist.

I am a partial preterist myself.

But, the vast majority of amillenialists do not believe these events have happened, including the blowing of the Seventh Trumpet. Where they see the Millennium as fitting in, depends on the person, but most seem to believe the Catholic Church and 'Holy Roman Empire' were the evidence - which they count on - for the Millennium having already begun.

So, unless you are a full preterist - and I won't tell - you really do not believe most of the stuff predicted in Revelation has happened yet. Including a lot which is depicted in the Book of Revelation well before the Millennium.

So, this kind of throws the time standard out the window. Unless you want to honestly apply that standard to your own beliefs... right?

Jesus said: Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

In 180 degree contrast to this scripture, you appear to be saying "NO, that is wrong...Jesus does not have All authority on earth today, Satan Does."

So Help me out here.....Did Matthew Misquote Jesus here? Perhaps you believe Jesus was Mistaken to claim ALL authority on earth belonged to Him and no one else?

Please exegete Matthew 28:18 for us, since you don't seem to believe it means what it says, and tell us what it really means instead?

Jesus is granted all authority on Heaven and earth....

So, you do not believe the kingdom of the world has become God's and Christ, at the last trumpet? How about I put it that way? What do you think that verse means?

 

[Erik Nelson]

If you are trying to prove your claim, you need to show evidence for it.

The Catholic Church, to the best of my knowledge, does not believe the Seventh Trumpet has sounded. So, would they not believe it has already sounded, if they have been the reigning system of the world? It is one thing to be reigning, but something else if you do not even know what you are reigning over. That would be one blind and death system of rulership.

If the Seventh Trumpet has not sounded, then 'the kingdom of the world has not become the Kingdom of God and Christ'.

Do you believe the Seventh Trumpet has sounded?

Otherwise, you are still left with not knowing who the 'two witnesses' are, which is key to proving the Seventh Trumpet has sounded. Unless you are arguing it is Saint Lawrence, and if you are, based on what evidence?

well you might be right... If the 7th trumpet refers to the turning over to God at Christ's physical second coming = revelation 20:10 ff

 

[Erik Nelson]

revelation 19 obviously resembles a second coming like event

but Christ does not appear to have physically returned yet

i offer that revelation 19 refers to the victory of the Church = BODY of Christ sowing the gospel = tongue sword

the actual physical 2C = revelation 20 when Christ arrives on God's throne (according to the will and by the grace of God)