Notes on the Coming Millennium

[BABerean2]

You assume, despite prophecy, that Israel will not be converted .

Actually God does choose [in the case of Abraham's seed] on the basis of geneology, you have to explain why they are beloved of God but not by you.

they are enemies of the gospel for your sakes but beloved for the sake of the fathers.
as touching election God's gifts and calling are without repentance.

You are ignoring the context of Romans chapter 11, to make your viewpoint work.

Paul begins the passage with two different groups of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5.
One was faithful, and one not, during the time of Elijah.
Paul said a "remnant" was also present during his time.

Paul ends the passage in the same way with two different groups of "they".

Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

There was a group of "they" who rejected the Gospel and were the enemies of God, and there was another group of "they" who were the election who are beloved, because they followed God's plan of salvation through Christ.

You are lumping the Baal worshipers together with the remnant of 7,000 who remained faithful to God.

.

 

[Billy Evmur]

You are ignoring the context of Romans chapter 11, to make your viewpoint work.

Paul begins the passage with two different groups of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5.
One was faithful, and one not, during the time of Elijah.
Paul said a "remnant" was also present during his time.

Paul ends the passage in the same way with two different groups of "they".

Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

There was a group of "they" who rejected the Gospel and were the enemies of God, and there was another group of "they" who were the election who are beloved, because they followed God's plan of salvation through Christ.

You are lumping the Baal worshipers together with the remnant of 7,000 who remained faithful to God.

.

No you don't understand at all [as I see it] Elijah was not pleading with God against the remnant but against Israel. But God told him about the remnant, Isaiah shows us the purpose of the remnant "If God had not spared us a remnant we would have fared as Sodom and Gomorrah."

But they didn't fare as Sodom and Gomorrah, the hearts of the entire nation was turned back to the Lord, through Elisha and Jehu.

Says YOU the "they" are different...if they were different Paul would have specified that, he would not leave a doubt.

 

[BABerean2]

No you don't understand at all [as I see it] Elijah was not pleading with God against the remnant but against Israel. But God told him about the remnant, Isaiah shows us the purpose of the remnant "If God had not spared us a remnant we would have fared as Sodom and Gomorrah."

But they didn't fare as Sodom and Gomorrah, the hearts of the entire nation was turned back to the Lord, through Elisha and Jehu.

Says YOU the "they" are different...if they were different Paul would have specified that, he would not leave a doubt.

Do you think Paul changed his mind between Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 9:27, and Romans 11:1-5, and the rest of Romans 11?

.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

I'm not sure what category I'm in. But I believe that the Church ruled for a long while, and it was during that time that Satan was bound (cf. Rv 20:2). But then he was unleashed (cf. Rv 20:3) during the time of the "Enlightenment," and, consequently, the world has been going downhill since. And I believe that now we are in the time of the Antichrist, so my guess is that Jesus will return soon (cf. 2 Thess 2).

That is 'post-millenialism', which is distinctly related to, and comes from, 'amillenialism'. That is, that the Millennium has come and gone, but we are just before the time Satan is to be destroyed.

The two times periods appear very similar: in both cases you see Satan released from the Abyss, and in both cases you see Satan leading the nations against Christ and his Holy Ones. And, in both cases, you see them being destroyed.

There are a very wide variety of theoretical frameworks surrounding these ideologies. Many Protestant, some Catholic, some Orthodox, and many shades of grey in-between.

Some of these theories posit that they are one and the same event, in some way.

I point this out, because it is very clear that many of the events preceding the Millennium have not happened yet.

For instance, you mention 'the Anti-Christ', but you really see symbolism with 'the Anti-Christ' in Scripture related to 'the third woe' -- the one where Satan is put down from Heaven and on earth, 'in rage because he knows his time is short'.

Symbolism from Daniel and Zechariah are contained in the verses during and after the two witnesses (the second woe), and specifically, regarding the Anti-Christ, during the 'third woe'.

Some post-millenialists, or flavors therein, believe that Satan was loosed during the Enlightenment, as you do. Some believe that Satan was loosed during the Reformation.

(Catholics, obviously, some, anyway, believe the later.)

Likely, I would find that some believed this was the case with the schism with Eastern Rome and what became the Orthodox Church and Byzantine Empire, around 1000 AD.

What is left not explained, and what I do not feel fits:
- It is stated that Satan no longer could deceive the nations during the millennium (Rev 20:3)

This is the main verse. Can you really say Satan was not deceiving the nations in the thousand years previous to the Enlightenment?

But, there are other issues:
- Who is the Woman in Revelation 12?
- Who are the Two Witnesses?
- When did the earth suffer vast causalities, such as one third of the population being killed? While this can be seen as symbolic... it is also true that the earth really has had vast causalities, in the thousand years before the Enlightenment.
- Can you really say that the Catholic Church is correct in claiming to be the representative of God and Jesus on earth? If so, their history is full of terrible bloodshed and many vile things. This continued on, to varying degrees, with the Protestants. Further, in anyway, was this not very much a 'top down' organization, where Kings and Queens (both in terms of literal nation rulers and popes and religious leaders) ruled 'as the gentiles rule, lording it over everyone'?
- When did the events of the first and third woe happen?

While there could be unanswered questions at the end of the Millennium, and secrets kept... the history of the Catholic Church is far from pristine.

Further, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church, both were deeply entwined with the Roman Empire. Which, amongst other things, does seem to point to the entwining of the 'False Prophet' and 'the Beast', along with the Statue of Daniel (where the Roman Empire is unarguably the iron calves).

That statue, clearly, has not yet fallen -- though, I could see how someone could say that it does not fall until the final destruction of Satan...

But, if so, still, it is hard to argue that the entwining of the Catholic Church and the world government of Rome does seem to speak of the 'false prophet' and 'the beast'.

Which may lead one to ask, perhaps, 'why God would you have allowed that to happen', or even, 'surely that could not be'. But, these sorts of questions, really, may have their answer somewhere in the end.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

To bind means to condemn, and to loose means to forgive. Binding satan’s influence over self looses the freedom of forgiveness provided at the cross Matthew 6:10, Revelation 11:15, Matthew 4:17, Romans 16:20 and is the meaning of the power of dominion. ‘For greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.’

There is no undivided church.

Binding and loosing can also mean a lot of things.

Just as the number seven and twelve are often used in Prophecy, yet they also have many meanings. Certainly, a core meaning, would be for the whole earth to eventually see how God did create the Heavens and the earth, partly because "seven" and "twelve" are related to seven days of the week (and creation), and twelve is related to twelve months of the year. Further, days are - with variance over location and season, location which points near areas like Israel - twelve hours for the day much of the year, and twelve hours of the night.

Rev 20:3 states that Satan did no longer deceive the nations during the thousand years.

That verse is very hard to get around - just by its' self - if one wishes to argue that has been the case during any time period present or past, in history. Certainly not in the past two thousand years.

Though, I suppose one could argue that 'all of that' was just man. But, much of that terror and darkness certainly can be found in the Catholic Church and the 'Holy Roman Empire', no?

Not to entirely condemn the Catholic Church.

But, without the Byzantine Empire and the 'Holy Roman Empire', how can one say that 'Jesus ruled' for a thousand years with the saints?

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

So. Once again I am asked by a self-appointed prophet to believe that the confessors of the Church, men who were tortured for their faith and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in holy Councils preserved and protected the faith of Jesus Christ were all wrong in their conclusions, and you're right. I should not believe all those holy men who acted under the authority of Jesus Christ, but rather I should believe you. And the cherry you put on top is that the Divine Liturgy that has lasted for two thousand years is not worship.

Do I have that right?

Are you stating that I am a 'self-appointed prophet'? I am not offending if you are, which does seem clear from what you are stating, though maybe I am missing something...

Regardless, there is no 'me prophesying here', anymore then anyone does when they posit theories about Scriptural prophesy. These are theories you are holding, not proven facts. A proven fact is that we can point to the statue in Daniel and state that the head is Babylon. That is told to Daniel. A proven fact is we can state that the seceding kingdoms of that statue are Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome -- though Daniel did not know that at the time. An unknown is 'who the feet' are, though we have a number of highly likely suspects.

Arguing that your beliefs are 'prophesy', and God given facts is your right, but 'even the prophets can not subject their prophesy to their own interpretations'. And when people do take their interpretations - which almost invariably they simply have gotten from others - as God given facts... this is exactly, effectively, what they do.

I am, actually, not doing this. But, I see these as theories, as I see the vast majority of the major interpretations as theories. But, not such matters, as small as they may be, such as the interpretation I cited on Daniel's Statue.

... looking at the rest of your response...

You seem to be accusing me of claiming the martyrs of the past two thousand years were frauds, which is entirely absurd and designed to be inflammatory. I will take it that - whatever doctrine you hold, you do not state - has blinded you to critical thinking, which should be applied to all beliefs. And it is applied, if you are tested.

You do not seem to understand what I am saying, as I am in no way implying that there were no martyrs in the past two thousand years.

There were all sorts of martyrs. I really can not further answer you, as you did not speak up on what your beliefs are -- and wrongly read my own.

Be bold, speak up. If you will.

Surely, it is strong enough to entertain some inspection... or no?

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Worship is the only thing that does count because it is where the Lord dwells. I have never seen a proscribed way to worship in the bible other than the Lord's prayer. Just because some people have been doing it one way and killing all others that do not does not make might right and never will.

The Lord's prayer is one key way, and the killing of people by those 'thinking they were doing God's will while doing so' certainly casts doubt on the overall legitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Not specific legitimacy, I am sure believers came about during those years.

In the Lord's Prayer, which one should keep to heart, we do see the prayer that 'Your Kingdom Come' -- and I do not believe we have seen that yet. Not in the vein in which the verse means, in context of the life and words of Jesus. While it is true that we enter the Kingdom, and the Church and Kingdom is one, as we are united in the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, it is not true - I find - that Jesus and the saints have truly ruled as such as the 'millennium' details.

Not when looking at the history of these matters... certainly not.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Bound means bound.
Jude :
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day
The Angels are bound until judgement day

Revelation 20 :
1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit

a and a great chain.

2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Satan will be bound a thousand years. In no sense are they limited.

I am not sure what this is in response to?

I will state I do not believe we see currently nor in the past, 'Satan no longer deceiving the nations'.

Certainly not over any 'thousand years' period.

To be clear.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Very informative.

Thank you, apologies for assuming that one of your responses of a critical nature were to me. (Though I did realize my response was off, I simply wanted to say those things, anyway, to 'who knows who'.)

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

In Revelation we see angels blowing the trumpet and in ! thess it is the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of God that calls for the dead to be raised and they meet Him in the air with those caught up. In Zech 14 the LORD comes with his saints on the day the LORD is declared king over all the earth. The MT of Olives splits in two creating a valley. Jerusalem was being overrun and the LORD fights and melts His enemies. It says from that point on all the nations which are left must come and keep the feast of tabernacles or they will get no rain. Life is seen continuing on earth with survivors at the time of the LORD coming. Jesus separates the sheep from the goats at this time. This is a judgement but not the great white throne judgement. There are so many passages about the kingdom age on earth perhaps you might consider the incongruities your view presents and try to resolve them.

What is this in response to? Unfortunately, I do not see the old CF way of threaded view of posts which might make this clear...

I am not aware of any incongruities in my post, nor with what you are stating. Your post does seem to be directed at amillenialists and post-millenialists, however.

 

[Berean Tim]

I am not sure what this is in response to?

I will state I do not believe we see currently nor in the past, 'Satan no longer deceiving the nations'.

Certainly not over any 'thousand years' period.

To be clear.

It was in response to #4 post of this thread.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Amil was widespread in the Church long before Catholicism.

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 fellowshiped amicably in the historical Church, and still do. Eschatologically, their only significant difference is the interpretation of the millennial reign.

Historic premils, in fellowship with amils, categorically reject the eschatological doctrines unique to modernist 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."

There are a vast number of shades of grey, in terms of 'interpretation of prophecy', I have found, in these regards. I read much of the wiki on 'dispensationalism' and it seems rather vague, but in the graphic which depicts it as the very same thing as 'pre-tribulational pre-millenialists'. I certainly have found a wide variety of flavors across pre-millenialists, and much of the wiki is far from addressing that.

reference: Dispensationalism - Wikipedia

I am not, my own self, a 'pre-tribulational pre-millenialist'. To be clear.

I would not state I am a 'dispensationalist', either, though, not by the other definitions imposed by that wiki and the related sources it comprises.

I am aware that pre, mid (or a), and post Millenialists 'get along amicably', and I would not have made this post, on this subforum, if I believed someone was irrevocably damned because they happen to have misunderstandings on Prophetic scripture.

This is why I am free to condemn the act of believing such theories without proper evidence. They are not sure. They do not stand up to critical thinking, to considering 'other possibilities'. We do have good examples of scriptural prophetic interpretation which certainly does so, such as on the statue of Daniel: where the head is of Gold, and relates to the Babylonian empire, and the next three kingdoms are the Medo-Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. But, who is the fifth?

Regardless, without you actually taking specific instance of anything I have said, I really can not comment much on what error might be in what I wrote, in my own defense. Nor can I be persuaded of your own beliefs, as you did not state them.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

The Creed says "whose kingdom shall have no end".

What is this in regards to?

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

It was in response to #4 post of this thread.

Ah... looking back... I see a #3 and a #5, but no #4, hahahaha, must be someone on my Ignore List.

Hahahaha... I did want to solicit critical opinions, but did block those I found to have particularly bad ideas which really did not stand any manner of scrutiny.

Still, I will likely indulge and unblock everyone, just to see.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

The Creed says "whose kingdom shall have no end".

Ignore my response of 'what was that in regards to', as I discovered it must have been someone on my 'ignore list' (which was painfully lengthy, but now, unignored everyone, to get into 'the fray' of things)...

Thank you...

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Based on Matthew 25:31-46, no mortals will be left alive on the planet after the Second Coming of Christ.

The "time of the judgment of the dead" is found right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible in Revelation 11:15-18.
The judgment of the dead is found at the end of Revelation chapter 20.

Christ returns "in flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not know God in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
The fire comes at the end of Revelation chapter 20.

Because Christ returns in Revelation 16:15-16, and also in chapter 19, we know the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.
Instead, it is made up of a series of overlapping visions.

These passages kill the premill doctrine.


.

These passages state nothing on pre-millenialism....

They certainly do not 'kill it', anymore then throwing the alphabet randomly at it would.

The Millennium has not yet happened. Satan has been deceiving the nations all along. If you can prove otherwise, feel free to. But, this, which you posted is not proof for anything. It is random and unrelated to either proving the millennium is now or has past, and random and unrelated to proving pre-millenialism is invalid.

We all have minds and are called to reason, we are not called to be unreasonable.

This argument of yours is patently unreasonable -- it does not address evidence, at all.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Amillennialism = a kingdom based on Faith. Premillennialism = a kingdom based on sight. Paul says whatever is not of faith is sin.

That is patently not true, and entirely unreasonable.

This is like the other poster I just unignored (as I did your own self), in order to see what others were responding to. Both of you did not respond to anything, and so you responded in an unreasonable way.

Present evidence, do not just randomly throw verses about in a meaningless way.

As for either amillenialism or post-millenialism, neither stands strong against scrutiny. Arguing that Jesus reigned or is reigning with the saints through the Catholic Church does not stand scrutiny. Arguing that Satan has not been deceiving the nations during any thousand year period in the past two thousand years, certainly does not stand scrutiny.

 

[Dave L]

J

That is patently not true, and entirely unreasonable.

This is like the other poster I just unignored (as I did your own self), in order to see what others were responding to. Both of you did not respond to anything, and so you responded in an unreasonable way.

Present evidence, do not just randomly throw verses about in a meaningless way.

As for either amillenialism or post-millenialism, neither stands strong against scrutiny. Arguing that Jesus reigned or is reigning with the saints through the Catholic Church does not stand scrutiny. Arguing that Satan has not been deceiving the nations during any thousand year period in the past two thousand years, certainly does not stand scrutiny.

Jesus was Amillennial. Nowhere does he mention a physical kingdom, only spiritual. Present when he preached it. If you go beyond this, you add to Revelation.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

J

Jesus was Amillennial. Nowhere does he mention a physical kingdom, only spiritual. Present when he preached it. If you go beyond this, you add to Revelation.

Again, this is just throwing our verses (in this case, assumptions, 'Jesus was amillenial'), without any specific target, or anything to weigh against.

By your standard of 'adding to Revelation', you are breaking that standard with your presumption that the Millennium started with the ministry of Jesus. To say the least.

That verse is targeted to those who would literally change the words in the verse, and publish it, clearly. Otherwise, anyone - and your own self strongly included here - would be guilty and so under the curse.

Very simple reasoning is required for that, as even attempting to consider any possibility - as countless have - would then be considered a sin worthy of eternal damnation, or annihilation, whatever your view there is.

This sort of argument is unreasonable, therefore, and nonsensical. As you invariably are altering the entire text and in a cartoonish way to argue that the Millennium was not 'yet to come', but started with the ministry of Jesus...

Maybe you can latch onto that and keep you on reasonable argument...

Throwing out verses haphazard ripped from context is definitely not reasonable.

It is just arguing for arguing sake -- would you argue everyone who does not agree with your particular theory, then is damned forever?? Because that is exactly the standard you are presenting here!

Huh. *Shakes head*.

 

[Dave L]

Again, this is just throwing our verses (in this case, assumptions, 'Jesus was amillenial'), without any specific target, or anything to weigh against.

By your standard of 'adding to Revelation', you are breaking that standard with your presumption that the Millennium started with the ministry of Jesus. To say the least.

That verse is targeted to those who would literally change the words in the verse, and publish it, clearly. Otherwise, anyone - and your own self strongly included here - would be guilty and so under the curse.

Very simple reasoning is required for that, as even attempting to consider any possibility - as countless have - would then be considered a sin worthy of eternal damnation, or annihilation, whatever your view there is.

This sort of argument is unreasonable, therefore, and nonsensical. As you invariably are altering the entire text and in a cartoonish way to argue that the Millennium was not 'yet to come', but started with the ministry of Jesus...

Maybe you can latch onto that and keep you on reasonable argument...

Throwing out verses haphazard ripped from context is definitely not reasonable.

It is just arguing for arguing sake -- would you argue everyone who does not agree with your particular theory, then is damned forever?? Because that is exactly the standard you are presenting here!

Huh. *Shakes head*.

Until you present one fragment of scripture from the New Testament saying the kingdom is physical, you are misleading others.