- snip for content clarity, initial quote put in so you get an Alert that says you have a response -
You state:
'The following would be close to my understanding.
I do not like any of the labels, although amill would be the label most people would use for what I believe.
Amill means no millennium, which is not what I believe.
The time period known as the "Church Age", which ends at the future Second Coming of Christ, would be what I see in Revelation chapter 20.'
That sounds like the partial preterist viewpoint. Or, preterist viewpoint. Which is the amillenial viewpoint.
As for disagreement with names and definitions, that is fine, but there are many, many shades of grey in what people actually believe. Amillenialism its' self has been very popular over the ages and remains to be held by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and a number of mainstream, Protestant churches.
(
Preterism - Wikipedia )
(
Amillennialism - Wikipedia )
(
The Rapture | Catholic Answers )
For me, because I state I am leaning towards pre-millenialism, does not mean you know my viewpoint, either. You most certainly do not. You have no idea how I view pre-millenialism as being possible.
You post a video & state:
'Because Christ returns in Revelation 16:15-16, and also in chapter 19, we know the book cannot be in perfect chronological order.
The "time of the judgment of the dead" is found in Revelation 11:15-18.
And Christ returns "in flaming fire" in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
The same event is described at the end of Revelation chapter 20.'
I stopped the video when the guy said that the chronological order of Revelation is mixed up, and as proof of that he stated that it says in Revelation 16 that "Babylon has fallen".
He goes on to say that 'Babylon is introduced here, and then, in Chapter 19, we see it introduced again, as if we had never seen it before' which he claims all of this 'proves that Revelation is not in chronological order.
This is poor exegesis, and a very bad way of introducing his theories.
You know better then this and present stronger proofs then that.
The reason why this passage has never confused anyone with there being two Babylons, because it simply is not confusing, unless you make it confusing to try and warp your own personal preferences around Revelation -- to try and slam fit a square peg into a round hole. It simply does not fit.
I do not think I need to explain why that is not confusing, and the very same 'fall of Babylon' and the very same 'Babylon'.
Now looking more closely at your presentation:
"
Christ returns in Revelation 16:15-16"
But, is that so?
Rev 16:15-16
15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
If you want to argue that is Christ's return, you might as well argue Christ returned when he stated that in the first place.
The more obvious reading of that is that Jesus is bringing up a reminder that what is transpiring fits in such a mold that no one expects the coming that will shortly thereafter happen.
That the 'kings gather together' at 'a place called Armageddon' does not mean Christ has returned either.
There is an implication that Jesus is somehow already on earth, or that the believers are found in such a way to have a connection with him, such as a spiritual connection through the air. As the 'spirits of the air' communicate, or as Paul wrote of being with a church in spirit, at least twice.
And as the vast majority of amillenialists believe, that they are 'reigning with Christ' spiritually.
Be they Catholics or Jehovah Witnesses, or the many other groups that believe this sort of thing -- I am not sure how else someone could believe the Millennium - or, as you say, 'the Church Age', has already happened, otherwise.
You go on to state:
'The "time of the judgment of the dead" is found in Revelation 11:15-18.
And Christ returns "in flaming fire" in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
The same event is described at the end of Revelation chapter 20.'
This is a much better exegesis, the best of the bunch.
In fact, I saw you mentioned Rev 11 and knew what it says there, so I was already willing to say your exegesis is superior to that reader on the video.
This verse is where many pre-millenialists - seemingly paradoxically - insist that they are raptured up, or caught up - literally, physically - into Heaven and leave everyone else behind.
I do not hold the viewpoint that they are literally, physically, removed from the earth. That is absurd, unnecessary, against common sense, and against Scripture. It is against the very nature of the Kingdom of Heaven.
From your viewpoint, these verses are good, as one could argue that 'how can the judgment of the dead come now, when you do not see that until the end of the Millennium'?
I do not see that viewpoint as accurate, nor as necessary. It is better then that pre-millenial viewpoint, but only marginally so. As it seems so clear that judging the dead does not happen until after the Millennium.
However, many partial preterists have no issue with this, being, of course, partial preterists, or believing some matters of Revelation before the Millennium have already come to pass, anyway.
How they just jump over the Third Woe and leap to the Millennium, then jump back to it again at the end of the Millennium, I do not know. Not because it is so absurd in a book which so painstakingly presents matters in such a strong, chronological order. Because you know Jesus did not return in 70 AD, and you know that, in Daniel - at the least - there is a key verse which breaks off and does not resume until his return.
This is also not entirely out of line with the Prophets, either, which often have one verse placed in one time period, and another verse placed in another time period. And, more importantly, all these verses - including the lives of the prophets - are, in some way, to be repeated or brought to mind, at the end.
Revelation, however, is not written in the same manner. It walks through the opening of the seven seals, the seven trumpets, the three woes, and the seven bowls of wrath. All in clear, clockwork like manner.
Did God do this just to deceive us?
I sincerely and deeply do not think this is the case.
Instead, something about the two witnesses was of vast importance. So vast it meant that it was understood - in Heaven, not on earth - that Judgment Day was upon everyone and the world. So vast that it was acceptable to state that the kingdom of the world had now become the Kingdom of God.
This, however, is not confusing, as one sees the Resurrection of the dead, shortly to come afterwards. Not all the dead. But, those chosen. Jesus came first to give salvation, and secondly, to bring judgment. And, if you are familiar with that verse, you know, it, too, is cut and separated from his first coming to his second coming.
But, it is in order. The second coming did not come before the first.
Further, that remains a pattern in all of these prophecies of Scripture which we can reasonably understand has a split in the middle. There may be a pause or a split, but it remains in order.
I am disappointed.
Regardless, I appreciate you opening up, and offering your viewpoint. I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal, if you choose to give one.
But, to persuade me, it would have to disprove these things I am stating, such as - and maybe it is possible - showing me where God put "2" before "1" or the "last" before the "first".
Not including, of course, the miracle of water into wine, 'saving the best for last'.
...
Otherwise, I am not looking up that youtube video to see what church it is. If you wish to offer the name, I will certainly research it. If your rebuttal is reasonable, I certainly do not mind finishing it. Everybody makes mistakes.
Or, can be tongue tied at times.
