One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Jamdoc]

Yes, but Premil wrongly portrays a millennium of unparalleled peace and submission to Jesus where the lion and the lamb finally rest together in unity and love and where the glorified saints enjoy final bliss and then bam the slaughter trucks pull up to take these same sheep to Jerusalem for slaughter. How cruel and pointless! Then after a thousand literal years of supposed perfect peace and harmony where Jesus rules with a rod of iron, the millennial inheritors turn en-masse to Satan in their billions as the sand of the sea. It is this false picture and misplacement of Revelation 20 that Premil portrays that doesn't add up.

Fits perfectly to me that nothing is ever enough for man.

the first man and woman had a beautiful garden, could live forever, had each other, all their needs met, all the animals were under their dominion and weren't afraid of them....
and it still wasn't enough, they still wanted to be like the Lord God.

also think about it, being ruled by a rod of iron, that's a strict rule.
People don't like strict rules
and I can guarantee you we'll have more than 1 rule just not to eat from a tree.

 

[Jamdoc]

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

This says He triumphed over demons by way of His death on the cross. But, you say that was already done before His death on the cross? If so, then what do you think this passage is saying?

You're not getting the context of the post I was replying to, which was sg using verses from the gospels that happened before the cross, where Jesus cast out demons, using it to try to prove that the death on the cross cast out Satan.... by using examples from before the cross.
I was saying that doesn't work, because it was before the cross. It doesn't support his position at all.
what those verses from the gospels show is that in regards to demons submitting to God's authority, it was the same before the cross as after the cross, that's the status quo. Demons have always and will always be subject to the authority of God. what those scriptures prove is not that the cross cast out Satan and bound him, but rather that Jesus had the authority of God, because He is God, and He then was able to delegate authority to His apostles.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hi JGR



Thank you JGR you have demonstrated exactly what amills are lost about. You are a partaker in the inheritance you get it when Jesus returns. King James uses out dated english here is a more literal translation.

Bible in Basic English
1:12 and give thanks to the Father who has made us fit to receive our share of the inheritance of God's people in Light.13 Who has made us free from the power of evil and given us a place in the kingdom of the Son of his love;

No I have not been translated into the kingdom and neither has anyone else because Jesus has not returned with the Kingdom to give me my INHERITANCE.

This was a sad attempt to deny what that passage teaches. Is Jesus not your King now? He is mine. Is He a King without a kingdom? Though we will inherit the kingdom of God in a bodily sense in the future, we are in Christ's kingdom now in a spiritual sense.

Are you not aware of these verses:

Luke 17:20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
John 18:37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Your carnal way of thinking prevents you from seeing the current reality that we are currently in Christ's spiritual kingdom which cannot be observed with the human eye and is not of this world. He is the King of kings now and we are in His kingdom. He will deliver it to the Father when He comes at the end of the age (Matt 13:40-43, 1 Cor 15:22-24) and at that point we will inherit the kingdom bodily in its fullness on the new earth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

also think about it, being ruled by a rod of iron, that's a strict rule.
People don't like strict rules
and I can guarantee you we'll have more than 1 rule just not to eat from a tree.

Strict rule? Does the following give the impression of strict rule or total destruction?

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

When He returns this passage says He will "smite the nations" while treading "the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God" resulting in "the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great" being consumed. Does that give an impression of strict rule to you? It certainly doesn't to me.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Does a potter's vessel being broken into pieces give the impression of strict rule to you? It sure doesn't to me.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You're not getting the context of the post I was replying to, which was sg using verses from the gospels that happened before the cross, where Jesus cast out demons, using it to try to prove that the death on the cross cast out Satan.... by using examples from before the cross.
I was saying that doesn't work, because it was before the cross. It doesn't support his position at all.
what those verses from the gospels show is that in regards to demons submitting to God's authority, it was the same before the cross as after the cross, that's the status quo. Demons have always and will always be subject to the authority of God. what those scriptures prove is not that the cross cast out Satan and bound him, but rather that Jesus had the authority of God, because He is God, and He then was able to delegate authority to His apostles.

I thought you were saying that in regards to the Colossians 2:13-15 passage as well since that passage was also referenced. It didn't sink in to me before that you were only referencing the verses from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The demons being subject to Jesus and the apostles even before His death and resurrection was a foreshadowing of what would be the case for ALL of Christ's followers after His death and resurrection because of us being indwelt by the Holy Spirit and experiencing the power that the Holy Spirit gives us to overcome the spiritual attacks of Satan and his demons. Before that it was not the case that people would just have to resist the devil and he would have to flee from them. Because of us having the Holy Spirit dwelling in us we have authority over Satan and demons that believers in Old Testament times didn't have.

 

[DavidPT]

Strict rule? Does the following give the impression of strict rule or total destruction?

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

When He returns this passage says He will "smite the nations" while treading "the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God" resulting in "the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great" being consumed. Does that give an impression of strict rule to you? It certainly doesn't to me.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Does a potter's vessel being broken into pieces give the impression of strict rule to you? It sure doesn't to me.

Can you explain how it makes sense for Jesus to just utterly destroy His inheritance? Is that what one typically does with an inheritance, utterly destroys it? In verse 9 are not those meant the same heathen given as an inheritance in verse 8? Or am I reading those 2 verses wrong, thus someone else is meant in verse 9, not any of Jesus' inheritance instead?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Can you explain how it makes sense for Jesus to just utterly destroy His inheritance?

Yes, very easily. They are His enemies and He can do with them as He wishes. Isn't the following quite clear that He will take vengeance on them and destroy them rather than rule over them?

2 Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

How does your view line up with this passage?

Is that what one typically does with an inheritance, utterly destroys it?

That is an irrelevant question. We're talking about Jesus here. Don't compare the Most Holy God Jesus Christ to weak, mortal human beings.

In verse 9 are not those meant the same heathen given as an inheritance in verse 8? Or am I reading those 2 verses wrong, thus someone else is meant in verse 9, not any of Jesus' inheritance instead?

No, it's the same heathen in each verse, but you're just interpreting it wrong because your interpretation does not line up with the scriptures that describe what will happen when Christ returns as it relates to heathen/unbelievers.

 

[keras]

It is your understanding of 1 passage in the most symbolic location in Scripture that is mistaken and is causing you to portray the millennium as something it is not. Revelation 20 is simply telling us what other Scripture is telling us that the Gentiles are no longer deluded and ignorant since the first resurrection. The Gospel light is shining throughout the world. The deception is gone. The Gentiles are without excuse.

The age of Aquarius you portray doesn't exist as your millennium is overrun by satanists.

Some of Revelation is symbolic, but to call a time period that is prophesied six times; symbolic, is error. Most of Revelation describes things and events that can and will be literally fulfilled.

There will be no sin during the Millennium. Why? Because Satan will be chained up and unable to deceive anyone. Only after the 1000 years has ended, will Satan again be able to 'seduce' peoples.
You know this perfectly well; why deny it?

Right.
They do not rebel once Jesus comes to receive his own to himself do they.

So where do the ungodly rebels come from at the end of your proposed millennium if you believe the millennium has no wicked people in it?

Another one who thinks it is OK to deny and add to plainly stated scripture.

 

[keras]

I've asked him about this before and he said he believes that the martyrs mentioned in Revelation 20:4 will be resurrected with mortal bodies and they will be the ones to populate the earth at that time. It's one of his private interpretations that he has all to himself. The problem with his interpretation, obviously, is that scripture NEVER teaches that anyone will be resurrected with a mortal body in the future.

Another of your wrong beliefs.
People were resurrected back into their mortal bodies before. Lazarus for example.
Revelation 20:4-6 says the Trib martyrs will also be resurrected back to mortality. Proved by how they may die again, but their second death has no power over them, as their names are in the Book of Life.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Another of your wrong beliefs.
People were resurrected back into their mortal bodies before. Lazarus for example.

That is irrelevant. Scripture never teaches that it will happen again. And you can't show anywhere that it does. Good luck trying.

Revelation 20:4-6 says the Trib martyrs will also be resurrected back to mortality.

No, it absolutely does not say that. Show that then. Good luck.

Proved by how they may die again, but their second death has no power over them, as their names are in the Book of Life.

Where does it say they are resurrected and may die again? You are adding things to the text that aren't even remotely there. And wouldn't such a thing be taught elsewhere in scripture as well? But, it's nowhere to be found. You have no scriptural support for this particular belief whatsoever.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Another one who thinks it is OK to deny and add to plainly stated scripture.

You still didnt address the question...because you cannot. I am not the one in denial hear .
God bless.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Fits perfectly to me that nothing is ever enough for man.

the first man and woman had a beautiful garden, could live forever, had each other, all their needs met, all the animals were under their dominion and weren't afraid of them....
and it still wasn't enough, they still wanted to be like the Lord God.

also think about it, being ruled by a rod of iron, that's a strict rule.
People don't like strict rules
and I can guarantee you we'll have more than 1 rule just not to eat from a tree.

It will never happen. When He comes He will remove all wickedness and corruption. No unglorified mortal will survive His return to corrupt the new earth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Some of Revelation is symbolic

Just some, eh? Just a symbolic word here and there, right?

but to call a time period that is prophesied six times; symbolic, is error. Most of Revelation describes things and events that can and will be literally fulfilled.

This is the most ludicrous argument that I've seen premils make. The number of times a term is mentioned does not determine if it's literal or symbolic. The beast is mentioned over 30 times in Revelation. Does that make it a literal beast?

There will be no sin during the Millennium. Why? Because Satan will be chained up and unable to deceive anyone.

Hmmm. Does scripture teach that a person can only sin if tempted by Satan?

James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Can you show me where this passage talks about someone being deceived by Satan? I can't find it. Yet, it still talks about someone being tempted and "dragged away BY THEIR OWN EVIL DESIRE" and enticed to sin. Looks like you've contradicted scripture again, keras.

Only after the 1000 years has ended, will Satan again be able to 'seduce' peoples.
You know this perfectly well; why deny it?

Another one who thinks it is OK to deny and add to plainly stated scripture.

You mean like you do by denying plainly stated scripture like James 1:14 when you say that no one can sin unless Satan deceives them?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Hi JGR



Thank you JGR you have demonstrated exactly what amills are lost about. You are a partaker in the inheritance you get it when Jesus returns. King James uses out dated english here is a more literal translation.

Bible in Basic English
1:12 and give thanks to the Father who has made us fit to receive our share of the inheritance of God's people in Light.13 Who has made us free from the power of evil and given us a place in the kingdom of the Son of his love;

No I have not been translated into the kingdom and neither has anyone else because Jesus has not returned with the Kingdom to give me my INHERITANCE.

Once again as I said before you can not use Pauls words to negate Jesus' words you have to see Pauls words in light of Jesus words not vise versa. Jesus is very plain in John 14: You get your inheritance WHEN HE RETURNS.

[2] In my Father's house are many rooms; (Holy Jerusalem) if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?[3] And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Clearly Jesus is saying only when he retruns do you get your inheritance your reward. Are you telling me Jesus already returned?

Here is another verse to prove the same point

[31]"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

Once again we see Jesus saying in very plain language you get the inheritance at his return. NOW knowing what Jesus said look at Pauls words again.

1:12 and give thanks to the Father who has made us fit to receive our share of the inheritance of God's people in Light.13 Who has made us free from the power of evil and given us a place in the kingdom of the Son of his love;

The Inheritance you clearly get .....WHEN DOES JESUS SAY.......at his return.

Amills ignore Jesus plain words and by doing so they misunderstand what Paul is really saying. Are you really trying to tell me that Jesus was wrong and Paul was right. Or is it just possible that you are misunderstanduing Paul because you are not measuring his words in light of Jesus' very plain words.

You do not seem to have any grasp of Amil. If you did you could have saved yourself time writing this. Amils believe the kingdom arrived spiritually through the earthly ministry of Jesus but will come in all its final fulness and glorified perfection when Jesus comes in majesty and power to remove all wickedness and corruption and introduce perfect righteousness. Amils describe this overall dynamic as already/not yet. These passages support the Amil position.

I would recommend that you read up on Amil before writing your posts because you are too-often shooting at white elephants.

 

[keras]

No, it absolutely does not say that

You are absolutely wrong:
Revelation 20:4-6...I saw the souls of the martyrs...and they lived and reigned with Christ for 1000 years. [lived; brought back to life - not made immortal]
Blessed are those in this first resurrection, for over them their second death has no power..... [they are flesh and blood, but as their names are Written in the Book of Life, immortality will be theirs at the GWT Judgment]

Just some, eh? Just a symbolic word here and there, right?

The 'beast' is symbolic of the man who will be the leader of the One World Govt. Other symbols are easily explained, but to make the specific 1000 year period symbolic; is gross error.

You mean like you do by denying plainly stated scripture like James 1:14 when you say that no one can sin unless Satan deceives them?

Another jump to a wrong conclusion, made to denigrate and smear me.
But actually; that Satan is behind all sin, is quite Biblical. It all goes back to Adam and Eve; the Fall.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Hello



First off stop twisting or selectively picking what I said toi fit your twisted narative. I said very plainly in both post that I could show they were both premill and that I have already done it many times in this thread.

I dealt with one passage from Clement in post #40 another in post #128 Both clearly shows he did not teach the kingdom had come. He taught that the kingdom and the inheritance was still to come in his day. So No Millenial Kingdom already in place in heaven as you and other Amills try and push that he taught. I directly answered this exact same call of yours that you now say I am avoiding. Look in post #149 and #176 with regard to Barnabas. But now you wish to play the here we go round the Mulberry Bush game again. Go look for yourself I grow tired of your childish games

You have created your own set of beliefs for Premill and then said prove to me these false beliefs I have created are correct. Your tacticts may fool a small child but not anyone with a brian who can read the plain words of God.

I do not believe 90% of what you said premill believe why should I try and prove what I do not believe.

Amills believe God created life on another planet. Prove to me God created human life on another planet? See I can write down a set of beliefs for amill that you do not believe and ask you to prove it to me too. However it really only proves I am an idiot for trying such a child like manover in a debate with reasonable people.

You said this in post #57 That is because it is a figurative term. A thousand years is simply a simile for a long period of time.

1. Show me one place were either of these Fathers said that the 1,000 years in not a specific anmount of time. Just one place.

I have already shown you and others many times post #40 #128 #149 #176 in this thread that Both these Fathers believed that the words of Daniel and Revelation were yet unfilled and the Kingdom and Inheritance was yet to come in the future you want to read it go back and look at my posts and you will find it.

Everyone agrees that there will be a future kingdom coming at the return of Jesus Christ. It is how that looks is where each school of thought differs. Amils believe this kingdom will be perfect, glorious and eternal. It will be devoid of any corruption. There will be no more sin nor sinners, dying nor crying, marriage nor procreation, war nor terror Satan, nor his minions. These will be removed from it.

Amillennialists reject the continuation on of sufferings and evil in the age to come. They reject the new Premil bipolar age of justice and injustice, deliverance and bondage, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, perfection and sin, glorification and corruption, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and rebellion.

You place the pole so low in regard to what constitutes a Premil that you could literally render jgr, Christian Gedge, Spiritual Jew, Jeff and myself, and many other Amils as Premillennialists. The mere believing in a future kingdom is suffice for you to place the Premil hat on them. Well that is naive in the extreme and shows how bereft you are of Premil ECFs. With this type of lease, biased and in accurate you could claim anyone for your beliefs.

Admission you have nothing!

I asked you 9 simple questions relating to Premil elementary norms and asked you to show me one single quote from Barnabas and Clement supporting these. I then confidently predicted: “you will not even be able to answer Number 1, as neither of these ECFs believed Premil or Chiliasm.” These questions were as follows:

1. Please give me any quote from Barnabas and Clement that explicitly described a future 1000 years as Premils teach?
2. Please give me any quote from Barnabas and Clement that explicitly described Jesus on a future millennial earth as Premils teach?
3. Please give me any quote from Barnabas and Clement that taught the continuation of the bondage of corruption on a future millennial earth as Premils teach?
4. Please give me any quote from Barnabas and Clement that taught the wicked or mortals inheriting a future millennial earth as Premils teach?
5. Please give me any quote of Barnabas and Clement showing mortal humans interreacting with glorified saints on a future millennial earth as Premils teach?
6. Please give me any quote of Barnabas and Clement showing the continuation of dying and crying on a future millennial earth as Premils teach?
7. Please give me any quote of Barnabas and Clement teaching Satan will be bound at the second coming, released 1000 years after the second coming and instigate an uprising of billions of millennial inhabitants as Premils teach?
8. Please give me any quote of Barnabas and Clement showing the elevation of natural Israel to their old covenant place of favour over all other nations, the restoring of Israel back to her ancient borders, the return of the whole old covenant arrangement, the rebuilding of a brick temple in earthly Jerusalem, the restarting of the mass slaughter of innocent animals on the new earth, the restoration of the ancient old covenant priesthood again in a future millennium?
9. Please give me any quote of Barnabas and Clement teaching the continuation of marriage and procreation on a future millennial earth as Premils teach?

These are not difficult questions to answer if you had the evidence, as you confidently claimed. After all, these are 101 Premil fundamentals. Well, guess what? You were unable to present one single little bit of evidence, as I predicted. That is because it does not exist. You even admitted that:

one can not prove a negative it is impossible.

One can not show what is not said directly.

There you go! You have zero evidence that they were Premil. That is because they were Amillennialists.

While you again admit you have been unable to present any proof of Barnabas being a Premil, you throw a hail Mary re Clement. So what compelling evidence do you have that addresses one of the 9 questions? This:

1Clem 42:3

Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

Notice they went forth teaching the Kingdom SHOULD COME not has come.

As I said in my introduction, we all believe this. But where is a future millennium mentioned here? Nowhere! Where is any Premil characteristic mentioned? Nowhere!

Clearly you know you have nothing of evidential worth to bring to the table.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Can you explain how it makes sense for Jesus to just utterly destroy His inheritance? Is that what one typically does with an inheritance, utterly destroys it? In verse 9 are not those meant the same heathen given as an inheritance in verse 8? Or am I reading those 2 verses wrong, thus someone else is meant in verse 9, not any of Jesus' inheritance instead?

Which of these 9 do Premils not believe?

 

[Just The Facts]

Dear dear Sov

Proof You Have Nothing

I asked you to post just one verse from these two Fathers that says the 1,000 years is not a litteral period of time.

You did not so you have nothing. If you had something you would have posted it but you did not because it does not exist. This proves they were Premill


Now finally you have stated your view of amill which was all I asked you to de a half dozen posts ago so that I could understand what you believe and not assume I understood what you believe as you assume you understand what I believe.

Everyone agrees that there will be a future kingdom coming at the return of Jesus Christ.

That is not true at all and whether there is a future Kingdom is not the difference between amill and premill.

The Two Names state quite clearly what they are saying amill believes the 1,000 years has already started and is spiritual in nature. That when you die you receive your inheritance /reward that is you go staright to heaven to be with Jesus ruling Earth from heaven.

Amillenarism or Amillennialism (from Latin mille, one thousand; "a" being a negation prefix) is a type of chillegorism which teaches that there will be no millennial reign of the righteous on earth. Amillennialists interpret the thousand years symbolically to refer either to a temporary bliss of souls in heaven before the general resurrection, or to the infinite bliss of the righteous after the general resurrection.[1]

Amills teach that Rv: 20:

[4] Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who 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.

Amill be its very name means that you believe the 1,000 year reign of Christ has begun,and that you receive your inheratance at either Baptism or Death..

Is this not what you believe?

The reality is Barnabas may well have lived and wrote his work Before Revelation was even written why would he talk about something that was not even written. the whole premis of your questions is just plain nonsense. I mean that in the litteral sense it makes no sense.

Just because someone does not say something it does not mean they did not know and understand that very point. You have looked up things you know they did not say directly and now are try to use that as proof they did not believe that. Lack of statement is not proof of lack of belief no matter how hard you try and suggest it is.

God knew the earth was round and traveled around the sun and that the universe is made of billions of suns just because Scripture never says that does not mean he did not know and believe it. Once again lack of staement does not equate to lack of knowledge and belief.

Barnabas and Clement both believed that Daniel's prophesies had not yet finnished. Barnabas clearly states his belief that he was living in the time of the Ten Kings of Daniel 7: Clearly showing he did not believe the kingdom had come or that the inhertance was fulfilled in this life or in the church. So he for sure did not believe that Dan 7:21 had happened by his own words which I quoted in Post 148 and 179

[21] As I looked, this horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them, [22] until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom.

He Believed the Kingdom had not yet Come. He did not believe the little horn had come yet. So by definition he can not be amill because amill means you believe the Kingdom of God has Come and you are in it.

To me the difference between Amill and Premill is just that Do you believe the Kingdom has come in any way shape or form amills believe it has Premills believe it has not.

Amill =in the thousand years
premill= before the 1,000 years

That is the difference between the two

I know premills who believe there will be sin during the 1000 years I know premills who do not believe this.

For me I trust the plain words of scripture if Satan is Bound there will be no more war nation will not raise against nation. Because Satan will not be able to deceive the nations to darw them to battle anymore.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Dear dear Sov

Proof You Have Nothing

I asked you to post just one verse from these two Fathers that says the 1,000 years is not a litteral period of time.

You did not so you have nothing. If you had something you would have posted it but you did not because it does not exist. This proves they were Premill


Now finally you have stated your view of amill which was all I asked you to de a half dozen posts ago so that I could understand what you believe and not assume I understood what you believe as you assume you understand what I believe.



That is not true at all and whether there is a future Kingdom is not the difference between amill and premill.

The Two Names state quite clearly what they are saying amill believes the 1,000 years has already started and is spiritual in nature. That when you die you receive your inheritance /reward that is you go staright to heaven to be with Jesus ruling Earth from heaven.

Amillenarism or Amillennialism (from Latin mille, one thousand; "a" being a negation prefix) is a type of chillegorism which teaches that there will be no millennial reign of the righteous on earth. Amillennialists interpret the thousand years symbolically to refer either to a temporary bliss of souls in heaven before the general resurrection, or to the infinite bliss of the righteous after the general resurrection.[1]

Amills teach that Rv: 20:

[4] Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who 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.

Amill be its very name means that you believe the 1,000 year reign of Christ has begun,and that you receive your inheratance at either Baptism or Death..

Is this not what you believe?

The reality is Barnabas may well have lived and wrote his work Before Revelation was even written why would he talk about something that was not even written. the whole premis of your questions is just plain nonsense. I mean that in the litteral sense it makes no sense.

Just because someone does not say something it does not mean they did not know and understand that very point. You have looked up things you know they did not say directly and now are try to use that as proof they did not believe that. Lack of statement is not proof of lack of belief no matter how hard you try and suggest it is.

God knew the earth was round and traveled around the sun and that the universe is made of billions of suns just because Scripture never says that does not mean he did not know and believe it. Once again lack of staement does not equate to lack of knowledge and belief.

Barnabas and Clement both believed that Daniel's prophesies had not yet finnished. Barnabas clearly states his belief that he was living in the time of the Ten Kings of Daniel 7: Clearly showing he did not believe the kingdom had come or that the inhertance was fulfilled in this life or in the church. So he for sure did not believe that Dan 7:21 had happened by his own words which I quoted in Post 148 and 179

[21] As I looked, this horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them, [22] until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom.

He Believed the Kingdom had not yet Come. He did not believe the little horn had come yet. So by definition he can not be amill because amill means you believe the Kingdom of God has Come and you are in it.

To me the difference between Amill and Premill is just that Do you believe the Kingdom has come in any way shape or form amills believe it has Premills believe it has not.

Amill =in the thousand years
premill= before the 1,000 years

That is the difference between the two

I know premills who believe there will be sin during the 1000 years I know premills who do not believe this.

For me I trust the plain words of scripture if Satan is Bound there will be no more war nation will not raise against nation. Because Satan will not be able to deceive the nations to darw them to battle anymore.

Please stop trying to distract away from the enquiry at hand. You have come up with nothing of evidential worth as of yet to prove these both were Premil. You are now making new claims. Notwithstanding: please furnish me with quotes that prove Barnabas and Clement believed that the the Ancient of Days had not come, and judgment was not yet given to the saints of the Most High, and the time had not come when the saints received the kingdom?

It sounds like this is another false claim.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Dear dear Sov

Proof You Have Nothing

I asked you to post just one verse from these two Fathers that says the 1,000 years is not a litteral period of time.

You did not so you have nothing. If you had something you would have posted it but you did not because it does not exist. This proves they were Premill


Now finally you have stated your view of amill which was all I asked you to de a half dozen posts ago so that I could understand what you believe and not assume I understood what you believe as you assume you understand what I believe.



That is not true at all and whether there is a future Kingdom is not the difference between amill and premill.

The Two Names state quite clearly what they are saying amill believes the 1,000 years has already started and is spiritual in nature. That when you die you receive your inheritance /reward that is you go staright to heaven to be with Jesus ruling Earth from heaven.

Clement never mentioned a future thousand years, but he did teach some Amil fundamentals.

Clement believed the Church is true Israel

1 Clement 29:1-3 –30:1

His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance. And in another place [the Scripture] saith, “Behold, the Lord taketh unto Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the first-fruits of his threshing-floor; and from that nation shall come forth the Most Holy.” Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness.

Clement ascribes to the Church the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. The early Church viewed themselves as true Israel. As Gordon Wood Martin says about this text in Eschatology in The Early Church: “the basic thought is of a continuity between Israel and the Church.”

Clement believed in a general judgment when Jesus comes

1 Clement 34

The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with boldness, but the slothful and careless dareth not look his employer in the face. It is therefore needful that we should be zealous unto well-doing, for of Him are all things: since He forewarneth us saying, Behold, the Lord, and His reward is before His face, to recompense each man according to his work. He exhorteth us therefore to believe on Him with our whole heart, and to be not idle nor careless unto every good work. Let our boast and our confidence be in Him: let us submit ourselves to His will; let us mark the whole host of His angels, how they stand by and minister unto His will. For the scripture saith, Ten thousand times ten thousands stood by Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him: and they cried aloud, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of His glory. Yea, and let us ourselves then, being gathered together in concord with intentness of heart, cry unto Him as from one mouth earnestly that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For He saith, Eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and it hath not entered into the heart of man, what great things He hath prepared for them that patiently await Him.

The “good” servant in Scripture was the believer and ended up in heaven; the “slothful” servant represented the unbeliever and ended up in a lost eternity. After exhorting loyalty to his readers, the writer presents Scripture (Revelation 22:12) as a warning that Christ is Coming with His “reward … before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” None can surely be exempted from this warning. This is the final judgment that involves both the wicked and the righteous.

There are a few interesting pointers here that help us discern Clement’s end-time views. First, this early writer sees the Lord’s Coming as a judgment day for all. After mentioning “the good workman” receiving his just reward for his work after finishing, and “the slothful” stooping with shame when the employers arrives at the end of work, Clement refers to Christ’s coming, saying, “His reward is before His face, to recompense each man according to his work.” Judgment day brings varying outcomes for mankind, but all will indeed appear before the judge of all the earth.

This is very similar language to the teaching in 2 Clement only the latter expands the portrayal in more detail. Both seem to describe an all-inclusive judgment. In both letters the writer makes no suggestion of separate judgment days as the Premil theory does.

Clement believed in Christ current reign over His enemies

1 Clement 36:1-37:1

This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we found our salvation, even Jesus Christ the High priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness. Through Him let us look steadfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; through Him our foolish and darkened mind springeth up unto the light; through Him the Master willed that we should taste of the immortal knowledge Who being the brightness of His majesty is so much greater than angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name. For so it is written Who maketh His angels spirits and His ministers aflame of fire but of His Son the Master said thus, Thou art My Son, I this day have begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession. And again He saith unto Him Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet. Who then are these enemies? They that are wicked and resist His will. Let us therefore enlist ourselves, brethren, with all earnestness in His faultless ordinances. Let us mark the soldiers that are enlisted under our rulers, how exactly, how readily, how submissively, they execute the orders given them. All are not prefects, nor rulers of thousands, nor rulers of hundreds, nor rulers of fifties, and so forth; but each man in his own rank executeth the orders given by the king and the governors. The great without the small cannot exist, neither the small without the great. There is a certain mixture in all things, and therein is utility. Let us take our body as an example. The head without the feet is nothing; so likewise the feet without the head are nothing: even the smallest limbs of our body are necessary and useful for the whole body: but all the members conspire and unite in subjection, that the whole body may be saved.

Clement emphasizes the current kingship of Christ over his enemies. After quoting Hebrews 1:3-4 and 7 to show the sovereign power and glory that Christ now enjoys, Clement then employs Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 to demonstrate His current rulership over the nations. These are passages that Premillennialists normally apply to their supposed future millennium.

Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Psa 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psa 110:2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Unlike all the early Chiliasts, Clement believed in the heavenly intermediate state

1 Clement 45

Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the things that pertain unto salvation. Ye have searched the scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy Ghost; and ye know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. Ye will not find that righteous persons have been thrust out by holy men. Righteous men were persecuted, but it was by the lawless; they were imprisoned, but it was by the unholy. They were stoned by transgressors: they were slain by those who had conceived a detestable and unrighteous jealousy. Suffering these things, they endured nobly. For what must we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the lions' den by them that fear God? Or were Ananias and Azarias and Misael shut up in the furnace of fire by them that professed the excellent and glorious worship of the Most High? Far be this from our thoughts. Who then were they that did these things? Abominable men and full of all wickedness were stirred up to such a pitch of wrath, as to bring cruel suffering upon them that served God in a holy and blameless purpose, not knowing that the Most High is the champion and protector of them that in a pure conscience serve His excellent Name: unto whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. But they that endured patiently in confidence inherited glory and honour; they were exalted, and had their names recorded by God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen.

Clement here divorces himself from the early Chiliast belief that the redeemed descended into hell to wait until the second coming of Christ after death. He sees those underwent persecution in this life and “that endured patiently” were rewarded by inheriting “glory and honour” and were “exalted.” These celebrated terms are never attributed to Hades/Abraham’s bosom by early Chiliasts and Amillennialists. But pertain exclusively to the heavenly abode.

Clement believed in “the already” and “the not yet” reality of the kingdom

1 Clement 54

Who therefore is noble among you? Who is compassionate? Who is fulfilled with love? Let him say; If by reason of me there be faction and strife and divisions, I retire, I depart, whither ye will, and I do that which is ordered by the people: only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters. He that shall have done this, shall win for himself great renown in Christ, and every place will receive him: for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. Thus have they done and will do, that live as citizens of that kingdom of God which bringeth no regrets.

In 1 Clement 42, 50 and 54, Clement confirms the classic Amillennial position concerning the kingdom of God of “the already” and “the not yet.” He here sees the kingdom of God as a present reality that is experienced by the redeemed. Nowhere does he relate it to some supposed future millennial kingdom after the second coming.

Clement believed in the impending destruction at the second coming

1 Clement 57:2-7

Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God's roll, than to be had in exceeding honor and yet be cast out from the hope of Him. For thus saith the All virtuous Wisdom; Behold I will pour out for you a saying of My breath, and I will teach you My word. Because I called and ye obeyed not, and I held out words and ye heeded not, but made My councils of none effect, and were disobedient unto My reproofs; therefore I also will laugh at your destruction, and will rejoice over you when ruin cometh upon you, and when confusion overtaketh you suddenly, and your overthrow is at hand like a whirlwind. Because I called and ye obeyed not, and I held out words and ye heeded not, but made My councils of none effect, and were disobedient unto My reproofs; therefore I also will laugh at your destruction, and will rejoice over you when ruin cometh upon you, and when confusion overtaketh you suddenly, and your overthrow is at hand like a whirlwind, or when ye call upon Me, yet will I not here you. Evil men shall
seek me and not find me: for they hated wisdom, and chose not the fear of the Lord, neither would they give head unto My councils, but mocked at My reproofs.

Therefore, they shall eat the fruits of their own way, and shall be filled with their own ungodliness. For because they wronged babes, they shall be slain, and inquisition shall destroy the ungodly. But he that heareth Me shall dwell safely trusting in hope, and shall be quiet from all fear of all evil.

Clement saw the destruction of the wicked when Jesus comes. This phrase “at hand” is commonly used in Scripture, and by Christian writers from the earliest of times, to point to the coming of Christ and the end of the world. There is no reason to take it otherwise here. The climactic detail attached to the references to His return show it to be a destructive day.

Clement keeps referring to the consummation as coming suddenly. What is more, Scripture repeatedly speaks of Christ’s appearing as being “at hand.” Here, the writer warns the wicked that “your overthrow is at hand like a whirlwind.” This would suggest that the writer viewed the second coming as the end for sin and the sinner, dying and crying, Satan and his demons, rebellion and corruption. It is the time when final justice is realized.