One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Jamdoc]

Wow! You have just done a 180 degree turn here when your reasoning was shown as non-sensical. I wish Premils would think through the fragility of their position before posting.



Premils never admit the contradiction of their position. They just paper over the cracks. That will work with the choir but not objective Bible-believing Christians.

I'm not contradicting my position, it was the same
it's just that Spiritual Jew gets to be so much of a stickler about "the day of the Lord" and criticizing me for thinking the Day of the Lord lasts 1000 years.

First off, I think the Day of the Lord never ends once Jesus returns
secondly, the 1000 years wouldn't even be a challenge if it was a finite amount of time because Peter and the Psalmist both say that to the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.
The meaning conveyed is that our reckoning of time really has no meaning to the eternal.
But, if God does convey a specific time to us, like the 1260 days/42 months/time times and half a time, then that's specific, the 70 sets of 7 for Daniel was specific just each set of 7 was a set of 7 years rather than 7 days. Or.. the 1000 year Millennium.

The times I'm not considering to be literal are when they use figures like "the day" "the hour" or "the time" those are all figures of speech.
"the day" or "the hour" is at hand doesn't necessarily mean 1/24 hour(s) and then it's no longer at hand.

 

[Jamdoc]

To me it seems rather ludicrous that the DOTL never ends. Imagine some of the following pertaining to all of eternity. Especially Amos 5:18 & Amos 5:20.

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

Those things all take place during the Day of the Lord, but are not the only things that take place during the day of the Lord.
Revelation shows multiple events and gives times for some of them, like the 5th and 6th trumpets.

 

[Timtofly]

Then in verse 13, Peter said in keeping with the promise of Christ's second coming, "we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells". Are you looking forward to the ushering in of a new heaven and new earth at Christ's second coming like Peter said we should be? Are you reading Peter's words as written when you read that? Amils are.

Peter indicates that those during the millennium will be patiently waiting for the NHNE. This time of waiting is after the Second Coming and the heavens being rolled back and all the works of man are burned up. Right now we are patiently waiting for the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

I didn't say that. Once again you have asked me an irrelevant question that has nothing to do with what I said. I can only conclude that you have a major reading comprehension problem.

I clearly understand that sin will no longer be present. Why is that hard to acknowledge?

 

[Timtofly]

I find this explanation to be completely unreasonable and definitely not a case of interpreting 2 Peter 3 as written. To consider a time that would occur 1000+ years after Jesus returns as still being the second coming is very farfetched and not something I would think anyone else in the world would agree with you about.

You already told another poster that no one would agree with them on that point. Now there are two who seem to agree with each other.

 

[Timtofly]

Do you even understand what Amils believe? Plainly not! Amil believes in a climactic return of Christ. They hold that the second coming is the end. It is the end of corruption, mortal man, the wicked and all wickedness. It is the end of time. Amils only recognizes a 2-age model, that of this evil age and the perfect age to come. Premil adds a 3rd age through their faulty understanding of Revelation 20, that is blighted with all the vestiges of the fall like sin and sinners, death and disease, lying, dying and crying, corruption and crime, war and terror. I do not believe Premils have any thing in Scripture nor among the ECFs up until AD 270 to support their thesis. It is not hard to prove that most of the ECFs believed the Church was spiritual Israel and that the coming of Christ is the end. It is impossible to prove they held the Premil fundamentals as, you have even admitted, there is not one single mention of a thousand years.

When I pressed you: you brought nothing to the table. That is because both Clement and Barnabas support the Amil paradigm. Revelation 20 is one of numerous climactic passages that support Amil. Premils depend totally upon their lone proof passage. Take that out of the equation and they have nothing. This discussion has reinforced that.

The problem with your version of amil is that you interpret Revelation 20 as starting at the first coming, but then you refuse to claim there is a Second Coming at the end, because that would make it post mil, or some strange pre-mill version of multiple comings.

You only have one coming in your interpretation of Revelation 20, and that is the first coming in the first century. Because SJ and you pretend the little season is about the Second Coming, but claim other posters are wrong when they do state this is the Second Coming.

That is the problem with your recap theory. It cannot hold water, nor fire.

If Revelation 20 is the current age, then the GWT is the Second Coming. When are you going to admit that point? Then at least you all can agree on one point of eschatology and stop fighting about it.

 

[Timtofly]

If you actual discover some hard evidence of any ECF from AD30-AD270 holding to the modern day Premil tenets, i would be obliged if you would let me know.

Not all pre-mil hold to your alledged tenets of your accusations. Just because many are wrong does not make your argument against pre-mill acceptable. Pre-mill only has one basic definition. Christ comes the Second Time to live on earth and complete Daniel's 70th week. Not for 7 years, because the first 3.5 happened already. Not even for 3.5 years, because the time keeps getting shorter. But then there is a Millennial Kingdom when Christ remains on earth. All other points are assumptions about prophecy that no one on this forum can clearly define. Not because of lack of wisdom. Because we have sin natures, and cannot even agree what no sin and no Satan even means. Many cannot even comprehend what a lack of evolutionary decay could entail. We are brainwashed with the deception of western science.

Tell me, was Noah's Flood a climactic event that literally ended the old world and gave us a new heaven and earth? If you cannot be honest with the destruction by water, and men kept living on earth, how can you accept a destruction by fire and humans will still be living on the same earth for another 1000 years? Was there a NHNE for Noah, or just the same perfection as prior to the Flood?

Because the Second Coming is going to change the earth back to the conditions prior to the first judgment in Noah's Day. The point of the Millennium is a perfect earth with a perfect rule of Christ. The first century was not the climactic destruction by fire that changed the world. It was the time called the fulness of the Gentiles, and that time ends at the Second Coming. But not only that ending, but the whole issue about Adam bringing sin into the world. Sin is at it's end as well, and that is why Satan is bound. His work of convincing Eve to rebel is over as well. According to Adam Eve was:

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

Does any one realize that until after the fall, this woman did not have a name? She was only referred to as the woman. Adam, only after the fall, then declared she was the mother of all nations. Was that Adam being literal or symbolic? Satan is bound from decieving Eve, to decieve the nations, no more.

The Second Coming is the end of this deception, until after the 1000 years are finished.

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,"

That is the only reason for pre-mill. How the other details are interpreted brings millions of views into how the OT and NT interact in the Millennium. John never explains how this Millennium works. He just gave us the length, and the most important detail.

 

[Timtofly]

If the day of the Lord = a literal 1,000 years then your doctrine is destroyed, allowing no possibility for Satan's "little season." Remember, in your paradigm, the destruction of the world must occur within that 1,000 year day of the Lord!!! Moreover, if the day of the Lord includes both the 1,000 literal years and Satan's "little season, then your 1 day = 1,000 literal years is also destroyed, the day of the Lord = 1,000 years + Satan's "little season, which represents and unspecific period. Bang goes your corrobration for a future millennium.

Scripture never claims this destruction is the same event as the passing away of the earth.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Heaven and earth passing away are not found here, just judgment of water and fire.

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,"

What is meant by the earth also? Peter explains: "and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

Peter did not say the earth passes away. Peter says what does pass away, as only the works. Heaven passes away, meaning no more firmament. But not that we are exposed to space. There is no space but if it did exist it would pass away but not earth. All of humanity is brain washed into thinking earth is only a speck in the universe. That is false. The earth is the only reality that does exist. The firmament is smaller than the earth itself as the firmament is only a third of existence.

Why would we change our beliefs if the stars no longer existed, as opposed to if we had no more technology? No more technology would define us more than no more stars in the sky. How we use our technology to further the gospel is what Peter is addressing.

"Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"

The earth is not even mentioned here, only the firmament. The elements are the building blocks of the decay of current reality. This shows that even the means of decay and western science will no longer exist. There will literally be no more decay and the half life of elements at the Second Coming, yet the earth will not pass away itself for another 1000 years. Only sin and decay will pass away. The earth will be back to a perfect state.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Peter indicates that those during the millennium will be patiently waiting for the NHNE.

Where does he indicate that?

This time of waiting is after the Second Coming and the heavens being rolled back and all the works of man are burned up.

Where are you getting that from? Don't just make claims without backing them up. Show the scripture that you are basing this claim on.

I clearly understand that sin will no longer be present. Why is that hard to acknowledge?

Did I not acknowledge that sin will no longer be present after Christ returns? Of course I acknowledge that. So, who are you directing your question towards?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not contradicting my position, it was the same
it's just that Spiritual Jew gets to be so much of a stickler about "the day of the Lord" and criticizing me for thinking the Day of the Lord lasts 1000 years.

What was I supposed to think after you said this:

I actually kind of smirked, because it's also Peter that quotes the psalms in saying that for the Lord a day is 1000 years or 1000 years a day.
so the day of the Lord lasting 1000 years doesn't at all seem off.

Can you not admit that this strongly gives the impression that you were saying that you thought the day of the Lord will last 1000 years?

 

[Jamdoc]

What was I supposed to think after you said this:

Can you not admit that this strongly gives the impression that you were saying that you thought the day of the Lord will last 1000 years?

Because the point was, as with what the Psalmist and Peter was saying, that God doesn't reckon time like we do.
It's certainly longer than 1 24 hour day, because there's a lot of things with specific times given in it and unlike you, I don't allegorize all those given times.

I see the one figurative "the day of the Lord" as figurative.
you see everything BUT "the day" of the Lord as figurative.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because the point was, as with what the Psalmist and Peter was saying, that God doesn't reckon time like we do.
It's certainly longer than 1 24 hour day, because there's a lot of things with specific times given in it and unlike you, I don't allegorize all those given times.

I wasn't asking you what your understanding is of what Peter said. You already clarified that you think the day of the Lord lasts for eternity. What I'm asking you is whether you really think that saying "so the day of the Lord lasting 1000 years doesn't at all seem off" gives the impression that you believe that the day of the Lord lasts for eternity? It certainly doesn't come across that way. So, did you just say that by mistake then?

 

[Jamdoc]

I wasn't asking you what your understanding is of what Peter said. You already clarified that you think the day of the Lord lasts for eternity. What I'm asking you is whether you really think that saying "so the day of the Lord lasting 1000 years doesn't at all seem off" gives the impression that you believe that the day of the Lord lasts for eternity? It certainly doesn't come across that way. So, did you just say that by mistake then?

What I found funny is that you interpret all the timings given in the bible to be symbollic except "day of the Lord", and you become all incredulous of the idea that "the day of the Lord" can be even 1000 years long when you see everything else as a symbol and we're talking about the scripture where Peter is talking about how meaningless our measures of time are when it comes to the Lord seeming like He's stalling from our reckoning of time, all these people that talk about Preterism stress the "soon" and "quickly" but even we agree that "short time" and "soon come to pass" and "at hand" well, we've been at those states for thousands of years waiting. but to the Lord? Hardly any time has passed at all.

Like, we wait thousands of years for what the Lord barely considers any time at all, and now we want to say it has to be 1 literal 24 hour day?

 

[sovereigngrace]

What I found funny is that you interpret all the timings given in the bible to be symbollic except "day of the Lord", and you become all incredulous of the idea that "the day of the Lord" can be even 1000 years long when you see everything else as a symbol and we're talking about the scripture where Peter is talking about how meaningless our measures of time are when it comes to the Lord seeming like He's stalling from our reckoning of time, all these people that talk about Preterism stress the "soon" and "quickly" but even we agree that "short time" and "soon come to pass" and "at hand" well, we've been at those states for thousands of years waiting. but to the Lord? Hardly any time has passed at all.

Like, we wait thousands of years for what the Lord barely considers any time at all, and now we want to say it has to be 1 literal 24 hour day?

You did not address his post.

 

[Jamdoc]

You did not address his post.

It is
because when I posted it, I was referring to his incredulity that the day of the Lord could last 1000 years or longer.
and I have no problem with it lasting even eternity. Every day after Jesus returns is the day of the Lord.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It is
because when I posted it, I was referring to his incredulity that the day of the Lord could last 1000 years or longer.
and I have no problem with it lasting even eternity. Every day after Jesus returns is the day of the Lord.

So when does the total destruction occur?

 

[Jamdoc]

So when does the total destruction occur?

at the end of the Millennium.
Revelation 20:9 there's your fire
there is not all consuming fire at the 6th seal, at the 7th trumpet, or at the 7th bowl or at Armageddon.

There's fire mingled with hail at the first trumpet, but people seem to survive that as there are 6 more trumpets.
People get scorched with heat at the 4th vial, but people are alive to curse God from it.

In essence, God wants to drag out punishment and not just instant nuke everyone, and who are we to judge Him for wanting to dispense justice over a period of time rather than instantly?

 

[sovereigngrace]

at the end of the Millennium.
Revelation 20:9 there's your fire
there is not all consuming fire at the 6th seal, at the 7th trumpet, or at the 7th bowl or at Armageddon.

There's fire mingled with hail at the first trumpet, but people seem to survive that as there are 6 more trumpets.
People get scorched with heat at the 4th vial, but people are alive to curse God from it.

In essence, God wants to drag out punishment and not just instant nuke everyone, and who are we to judge Him for wanting to dispense justice over a period of time rather than instantly?

At the end of the millennium or the end of Satan's little season?

 

[Jamdoc]

At the end of the millennium or the end of Satan's little season?

Satan's little season is at the end of the Millennium
it's Revelation 20:9

 

[sovereigngrace]

Satan's little season is at the end of the Millennium
it's Revelation 20:9

Can you answer my question?