Millennial Considerations

[LastSeven]

Mmm where did I say that Jesus is reigning now, (except in our hearts)?

regards, Marilyn.

In post #177 you said: "Actually God`s word tells us that Jesus is on His Father`s Throne at the moment.

`To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father ON HIS THRONE.` (Rev. 3: 21)"

Obviously one can't sit on a throne and not rule. That's the whole point of having a throne, and as we've already agreed, the throne is symbolic for rule.

 

[LastSeven]

The first, documents the numerous problems with the Amil doctrine:

Amillennial Problems | Millennium | Lamb and Lion Ministries

This second, documents the supposed problems of pre-mil (as outlined by one of those Premil to Amil converts that you talk about)

Stephen, thanks for that link but I'm obviously not going to refute an entire article that wasn't even written by you. If you'd like to debate any points on amil, then feel free to ask me in your own words to refute any particular problems you see with the position. That way we can focus on one issue at a time.

You say that amils seem to spend most of their time attacking rather than reconciling scriptures, and you muse that "maybe they cannot". Well, I think it's a bit of an insult to suggest that people like myself would cling to a position even if we can not reconcile it. That would be stupid. Why would I cling to something I can't reconcile with scripture? Wouldn't that be akin to throwing out the scriptures altogether?

I'll admit that not everything is easily explained, but then neither is that the case for the premil position, and in my opinion there are far more numerous and far more obvious problems with the premil position, and that's why I believe we are now in the millennium. It's not because I just want to be confrontational, or because I've just arbitrarily picked this position even though I'm too lazy to reconcile it. I'm amil because it makes the most sense to me, and if you want to know why, all you have to do is ask.

 

[Stephen Mendes]

Hi LastSeven,

Did have a chuckle at your pic of Father & Son on a physical throne - a bit squishy. And yes the word throne is symbolic of rulership. So I liked it when you said `it just means they rule together` referring to the New Jerusalem. And no I obviously am not implying that Jesus will rule above the Father, for eventually `God may be all in all.` (1 Cor. 15: 28)

So now to the subject of where this throne/rulership is centred. We know from Hebrews that Christ is in the General Assembly which is in the 3rd heaven, with His Body and also the OT saints (spirits of just men) & the angels & the New Jerusalem. (Heb. 12: 22 - 24)

Then we know that in Rev. 4 & 5 we see that Lord Jesus is given the power and authority to rule from that realm. Thus all other rulerships come under that rule.

The New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven to near the earth and is the rulership over the earth. We know that the Father and the Son rule their, however that is NOT the seat of their power & authority as it would place them under the angels, even under where Lucifer had His throne.

It would be like having the Queen of England come and rule the Commonwealth from my little town. No way. There is a seat of power & authority to be recognised.

Marilyn.

Hi Marilyn,

I have been neglecting my Blog, my Youtube channel and my Facebook page over the last few days as postings in here have gone to 'fever pitch'.

As you probably saw my other post, I intend to withdraw to some extent from spiritual wrestling with these Amils

THANK YOU for joining my Blog and you will see some more interesting posts on it shortly as I examine some of these controversial Scriptures ..... without this time consuming back-and-forth which slows me down.

Thanks again for your interest in my publications.

 

[DavidPT]

Eternity begins, how do you have a mortal eternity?

You state the eternal has started, however you want a mortal kingdom?

I dont get it?

Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.


Take the above passage for instance. Only mortals can perish, correct?

Isaiah 60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.


Now compare the above to the following.

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.


Now consider the following as well.

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.
20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Compare the above to the following.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

It should be pretty apparent by comparing these passages with one another, that the timeframe meant in Isaiah 60 and the verses I submitted from there, are meaning during the new heavens and new earth, and that timeframe has to include Isaiah 60:12. It is ludricrous that Isaiah 60:12 is meaning any of the blessed saved who have already put on immortality at this point. Mortals still living on the earth during the new heavens and new earth seem to be the only explaination for Isaiah 60:12. And since it seems unreasonable that Isaiah 60:12 would be a threat for all eternity, if we then throw a thousand year time period at the beginning of the new heavens and new earth, it seems to me that these mortals would be given a thousand years to decide whether they want to serve the 'thee' meant in that verse, and when satan is loosed, they are tested in order to see what decision they had come to.

 

[Stephen Mendes]

Hello LastSeven..... you say...

"Stephen, thanks for that link but I'm obviously not going to refute an entire article that wasn't even written by you. If you'd like to debate any points on amil, then feel free to ask me in your own words to refute any particular problems you see with the position. That way we can focus on one issue at a time.

You say that amils seem to spend most of their time attacking rather than reconciling scriptures, and you muse that "maybe they cannot". Well, I think it's a bit of an insult to suggest that people like myself would cling to a position even if we can not reconcile it. That would be stupid. Why would I cling to something I can't reconcile with scripture? Wouldn't that be akin to throwing out the scriptures altogether?

I'll admit that not everything is easily explained, but then neither is that the case for the premil position, and in my opinion there are far more numerous and far more obvious problems with the premil position, and that's why I believe we are now in the millennium. It's not because I just want to be confrontational, or because I've just arbitrarily picked this position even though I'm too lazy to reconcile it. I'm amil because it makes the most sense to me, and if you want to know why, all you have to do is ask.

LastSeven"

Now to my mind this sounds like a more reasonable position..... as I also am always open to correction an training in righteousness.

You said to ask ..... so for starters.... you believe that we are currently in the Millennium and that Satan is currently bound ? that He was 'bound' when Jesus died on the cross ?

Well the binding could not be working because...

Really ? do you see the evidence of this in the world around you ? I assure you that Satan is deceiving the nations like never before ....

In fact we are moving to the time of the anti-christ with alarming speed..... the evidence of what is going on in the world around us should be sufficient for us to see that far from being bound..... Satan is more active than ever before..... because he knoweth that he has but a short time.

 

[DavidPT]

I'll admit that not everything is easily explained, but then neither is that the case for the premil position, and in my opinion there are far more numerous and far more obvious problems with the premil position, and that's why I believe we are now in the millennium. It's not because I just want to be confrontational, or because I've just arbitrarily picked this position even though I'm too lazy to reconcile it. I'm amil because it makes the most sense to me, and if you want to know why, all you have to do is ask.

One problem about now being in the millennium is this. The 42 month reign of the beast precedes the 2nd coming. According To Revelation 20:4, that verse places the time of the beast in Revelation 13 prior to satan being loosed. The time of the beast in Revelation 13 can't happen while satan is in the pit. There's only two times he is not in the pit. Before the millennium, and after the millennium.

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.


and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

What beast, what image, what mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands? How about Revelation 13 explaining these things? Does not then Revelation 20:4 clearly place the time of Revelation 13 as being already in the past and fulfilled before satan is even loosed, keeping in mind that Revelation 13 doesn't work if satan is in the pit during the time? This then tells us that the time of Revelation 13 is meaning before the thousand years begins. Only Premil can work with this position since it still places Revelation 13 at the end of this age just prior to Christ's return. Per Amil it would place the time of Revelation 13 having taken place 2000 years ago because that is where Amil typically places the beginning of the thousand years.

 

[Marilyn C]

Matthew 25:46 "Eternal Life"
Matthew 25:34 "Eternal Kingdom"
Matthew 25:41 "Eternal Lake Of Fire"

1+1+1=3

You can call me Truth, it's a good handle for me

mmm what about believing in Jesus, repenting of sins. I don`t see that written. So all I have to do is `good works` and I`m in. Try preaching that bro and you will have a rush of folks, ay. Easy way.

Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Marilyn,

I have been neglecting my Blog, my Youtube channel and my Facebook page over the last few days as postings in here have gone to 'fever pitch'.

As you probably saw my other post, I intend to withdraw to some extent from spiritual wrestling with these Amils

THANK YOU for joining my Blog and you will see some more interesting posts on it shortly as I examine some of these controversial Scriptures ..... without this time consuming back-and-forth which slows me down.

Thanks again for your interest in my publications.

That`s fine Stephen, you don`t have to post blogs everyday. We the reader need time to digest. Also these forums are a good challenge as to how to help others even amid difficulties.

Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

In post #177 you said: "Actually God`s word tells us that Jesus is on His Father`s Throne at the moment.

`To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father ON HIS THRONE.` (Rev. 3: 21)"

Obviously one can't sit on a throne and not rule. That's the whole point of having a throne, and as we've already agreed, the throne is symbolic for rule.

Oh yes you can as God tells us -

`The Lord (Father) said to my Lord (Jesus) "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I MAKE your enemies a footstool for your feet."` (Ps. 110: 1)

Clearly it is the Father`s throne/rule as Jesus Himself tells us - `...just as I overcame and sat down with My Father ON HIS THRONE /HIS AUTHORITY, POWER & RULERSHIP.` (Rev. 3: 21)

Christ has been exalted `far above all` as we know, however he has not been given public acknowledgement of His rulership yet. That is what the `worthy` search is all about in Rev. 5, 'Who is worthy to open the scroll` and to therefore rule.

Marilyn.

 

[BABerean2]

Well the binding could not be working because...

Really ? do you see the evidence of this in the world around you ? I assure you that Satan is deceiving the nations like never before ....

2Pe_2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;


Jud_1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;


A vicious dog who is chained can still hurt you if you get within his reach.

The Apostle Paul continued to conduct his ministry during the time that he was bound in chains.

.

 

[jgr]

The first, documents the numerous problems with the Amil doctrine:


Amillennial Problems | Millennium | Lamb and Lion Ministries

Unsurprisingly, it takes very little time to encounter misinformation and disinformation in uninformed or adversarial commentary. From the link:

"The amillennial view was developed in 400 A.D. by St. Augustine."

From Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD):

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [i.e., premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."

He was referring to amils, confirming their presence in the historical true Church long before Augustine, and characterizing them as pure, pious, and true Christians.

Both amils and historic (also known as classic) premils fellowshipped amicably in the historical Church, and still do. Eschatologically, their only significant difference is the interpretation of the millennial reign.

Historic premils categorically reject the eschatological doctrines unique to modern dispensationalistm.

From Wikipedia: "Premillennialism appeared in the available writings of the early church, but it was evident that both views existed side by side. The premillennial beliefs of the early church fathers, however, are quite different from the dominant form of modern-day premillennialism, namely dispensational premillennialism."

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi jgr,

Having to succumb to putting down fallen man, (everybody had some faults) or someone else`s view is very poor and a very weak way to bring the truth. Discussing scripture takes time, study, effort, listening and replying to specific points.

BTW You can talk `so and so` till the cows come home and no one will be any the wiser.

Marilyn.

 

[jgr]

Hi jgr,

Having to succumb to putting down fallen man, (everybody had some faults) or someone else`s view is very poor and a very weak way to bring the truth. Discussing scripture takes time, study, effort, listening and replying to specific points.

BTW You can talk `so and so` till the cows come home and no one will be any the wiser.

Marilyn.

Hi Marilyn,

If you can identify anything inaccurate in my post, I'll be more than willing to correct it.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi BABerean2,

Satan & his fallen angels have been limited in their influence. Satan, when Lucifer had mighty authority and power but not so today. he has limited power & authority and in the middle of the trib, we see that he is contained even more, limited to just being on the earth and not able to go through out the universe. Then we know that he will go to the pit and later the lake of fire. Down always down in regard to his power & authority. That is what the `chains` mean, I believe.

Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Marilyn,

If you can identify anything inaccurate in my post, I'll be more than willing to correct it.

Hi jgr,

You were talking about St. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Wikipedia, and appealing to them as your reference instead of God`s word. We can all go `Mr so & so` for our back up, but God`s word, Truth stands alone.

Marilyn.

 

[jgr]

Hi jgr,

You were talking about St. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Wikipedia, and appealing to them as your reference instead of God`s word. We can all go `Mr so & so` for our back up, but God`s word, Truth stands alone.

Marilyn.

Hi Marilyn,

The purpose of the post was not to deal with doctrine itself. Rather, its purpose was to correct misinformation about doctrinal history.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Marilyn,

The purpose of the post was not to deal with doctrine itself. Rather, its purpose was to correct misinformation about doctrinal history.

Ok, sorry I interjected there.

 

[jgr]

Ok, sorry I interjected there.

Not a problem.

 

[DavidPT]

Hi Marilyn,

The purpose of the post was not to deal with doctrine itself. Rather, its purpose was to correct misinformation about doctrinal history.

I myself don't dispute that a position labeled Amil today, that the doctrines pertaining to it already existed several hundred years prior to St. Augustine's time. I concluded that basically the same way you just did, via what Justin Martyr indicated in the quote you submitted from him. That doesn't prove Amil is the correct position then, since those such as Justin obviously held a different position. Assuming the correct position was being taught at the time, and that it was one of these, that obviously means the other position being taught at the time was not the correct position. Justin was a very intelligent man, apparently. I see no reason that he would have been misunderstanding Apostolic teachings at the time. Surely he would have known whether or not if any of the Apostles shortly before his time were teaching a literal thousand years after the 2nd coming.

 

[jgr]

I myself don't dispute that a position labeled Amil today, that the doctrines pertaining to it already existed several hundred years prior to St. Augustine's time. I concluded that basically the same way you just did, via what Justin Martyr indicated in the quote you submitted from him. That doesn't prove Amil is the correct position then, since those such as Justin obviously held a different position. Assuming the correct position was being taught at the time, and that it was one of these, that obviously means the other position being taught at the time was not the correct position. Justin was a very intelligent man, apparently. I see no reason that he would have been misunderstanding Apostolic teachings at the time. Surely he would have known whether or not if any of the Apostles shortly before his time were teaching a literal thousand years after the 2nd coming.

I'm not aware of anywhere that Martyr attempted to specifically argue the case for premil over amil. Some commenters say that in some of his discourses, he seems more amil than premil. So I think he was somewhat ambivalent himself, and we can't be definitively conclusive about him.