PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else here Amillenial?



SW28fan
Oct 4th 2008, 04:47 PM
I know it is the boring position and thus gets little discussion but there is an exegetical case to be made for it.

wpm
Oct 4th 2008, 05:02 PM
I know it is the boring position and thus gets little discussion but there is an exegetical case to be made for it.

There are quite a few on this site. I would say it is the most simplistic position. Namely, there are 2 peoples on this earth saved and unsaved. When Jesus comes all will be judged - the saved on His right hand the wicked on his left. The righteous are ushered into eternal bliss, the wicked to eternal torment.

ananias
Oct 4th 2008, 11:13 PM
I know it is the boring position and thus gets little discussion but there is an exegetical case to be made for it.

Yes, as Paul says, there are quite a few a-millenialists on this board (I'm not one of yooz). But the a-millennilaists have got tired of getting us pre-millers to see the light (becuse yooz are all pointing us at Mars to find the sun) :lol:

Just kidding

ananias

Buzzword
Oct 5th 2008, 01:54 AM
I'm a-mill, just because I believe that not enough Christians ALLOW parts of the Bible to be pure symbolism.

"Pure" meaning not a stand-in for some literal, historical event, but a physical image used to describe something metaphysical or spiritual.

Nihil Obstat
Oct 5th 2008, 11:01 AM
...is an exegetical case to be made for it.

Just as pre-millers need to wrestle over Eze. 40-48, a-millers need to wrestle over Zech. 12-14. What I'd love to see this thread become is a wrestling match between the text (and how the NT refers back to it) and the interpreter (both a-mil and pre-mil). Namely, just as I (as a pre-miller) acknowledge that Eze. 40-48 requires thorough study in order to make a case that it is still yet future, you (a-millers) must acknowledge the same of Zech. 12-14 to prove that it has already been fulfilled. These are our two camps' respective "Achilles heel", so if you're going to make an exegetical case for the a-mil position, I think it would be best for you to make your case using Zech. 12-14.

Just a request. - Lk.11

The Preacher
Oct 5th 2008, 11:16 AM
I would like to hear a detailed presentation of this position. Do you have some good links?

Cyberseeker
Oct 5th 2008, 11:33 AM
I accept the basic Amil position. :)

May I recommend the following link to John Stevenson, a very fair and persuasive Amil writer.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/Amil.html

valleybldr
Oct 5th 2008, 12:10 PM
Just as pre-millers need to wrestle over Eze. 40-48, a-millers need to wrestle over Zech. 12-14. What I'd love to see this thread become is a wrestling match between the text (and how the NT refers back to it) and the interpreter (both a-mil and pre-mil). Namely, just as I (as a pre-miller) acknowledge that Eze. 40-48 requires thorough study in order to make a case that it is still yet future, you (a-millers) must acknowledge the same of Zech. 12-14 to prove that it has already been fulfilled. These are our two camps' respective "Achilles heel", so if you're going to make an exegetical case for the a-mil position, I think it would be best for you to make your case using Zech. 12-14.

Just a request. - Lk.11
Well said. I don't have a general problem with Ezek. 40-48 because I don't endorse the anti-Torah default of most Protestants. The literal fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecies are foundational to my world view looking forward. Bono sang "when all the colors bleed into one." I can't wait until all the nations come up (or at least send representatives) to Jerusalem to acknowledge our Messiah as Lord and Restorer of all.

We need spiritual and physical intervention that there might be a healing of all nations. How does the a-mil position account for man's long track record of inability to "right his own ship?" I've read up on this position several times but I still don't seem to understand how it "plays out" in the future.

todd

SpokenFor
Oct 5th 2008, 10:46 PM
I have trouble understanding the a-mil position. How can you say that satan is bound when there is so much evil in the world and so much deception in the church?

wpm
Oct 5th 2008, 11:07 PM
I have trouble understanding the a-mil position. How can you say that satan is bound when there is so much evil in the world and so much deception in the church?

I used to wonder that, until I realized what Christ achieved through His earthly ministry, culminating with His victory at the cross. He bound Satan spiritually. Remember he is a spiritual being. He did not need metal chains in a physical pit to hold him. Anyway, he was only spiritual bound in order to stop him curtailing

Buzzword
Oct 6th 2008, 12:38 AM
Hmm, guess my version of Amillenialism is different from others.

I don't believe that the "millenium" is happening at this moment in heaven.

I don't believe that a "millenium" exists or will exist literally.

I believe that the "millenium" is symbolic of a time in the future when Christ will restore the Earth to its pre-fall form, while keeping the tempter out of it, until such time to release the accuser to test mankind again, before essentially rewriting the Eden story by deus ex machina-ing Satan and his followers out of the picture.
Following is the NEW Heaven and the NEW Earth, and behold all things have passed away.

John146
Oct 6th 2008, 01:03 AM
I know it is the boring position and thus gets little discussion but there is an exegetical case to be made for it.Welcome to the forum. I'm an amillennialist. How did you come to take this position? Were you premil before taking the amil position?

faroutinmt
Oct 6th 2008, 01:54 AM
I'm Amil as well. I believe that Christ is reigning right now as King. The kingdom spoken of in Daniel which would be given to Him is the kingdom of heaven which Jesus said was at hand in His own day. Satan is bound spiritually in the sense that the gospel now goes forth to all nations.

Regarding Zachariah 12-14, I believe there is much symbolism there speaking simply of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the fountain of His blood being opened for cleansing, the judgment against Jerusalem, Christ's betrayal, and the age in which the gospel is in effect, going out to the world. I certainly can't give a verse by verse commentary, but the whole of the three chapters seems to be clearly about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the commencement of His reign in the first century.

Libre
Oct 6th 2008, 02:02 AM
I am wobbling somewhere around amill. I haven't studied the millennial thing much, being more interested in the schools of eschatology - partial preterist is my leaning. I've read other threads on this also. No opinion yet. I've found Paul/WPM to very helpful.

Pat

SW28fan
Oct 6th 2008, 03:05 AM
Hey John146

I was a default dispesationlist for most of my Christian Life, I would occasionally read a bit about other positions but most of the Churches I attened in my adult life were dispesationalist some more heavily than others.
As I started to get involved in minstry activites mostly evagelism I felt compelled to study the Bible and theology. I encounterd other positions, wow! I ultimately went to seminary (Baptist) were I was able to really study the doctrine Ray Summers commetary on Revelation put to rest dispensationalism in my thinking. My Latent Calvinism (product of Presbyterian Childhood) reasserted itself at the same time and I came to the discovery that I was more a Presbie than a Baptist. I have the honor of changing from Southern Baptist to Presbyterian (PCA) while being in my first (and only) year of PhD studies at the largest Baptist Seminary in the World. Boy were they upset with me.;)

markedward
Oct 6th 2008, 03:15 AM
I have trouble understanding the a-mil position. How can you say that satan is bound when there is so much evil in the world and so much deception in the church?The amount of credit that people give to Satan is almost irresponsible, I say.

Given the vast number of Christians who believe that Satan has personally attacked them (and they can't be mistaken, remember they've got that Holy Spirit!), and the vast distance between them practically requires Satan to be omnipresent in order to carry out as much chaos as people give him credit for.

People seem to forget that Satan is a tempter. He doesn't make any of us sin. And on the other hand, people seem to forget that man is indeed capable of sin on his own. Hence, original sin? There's at least a few OT verses that put out the word that man's heart is sinful by nature. In short, just because Satan may be locked away doesn't mean things are going to get all happy-go-lucky, because mankind is still capable of sinning even without an external Tempter. Man tempts man to sin.

Basically, Satan isn't evil's only source. Man is a prime source of evil as well.

With that said, even if one tries to debunk Preterism with this idea (that Satan is the source of all evil), Preterism still has that card to pull that says "Hm, maybe Satan has been released?"

Cyberseeker
Oct 6th 2008, 03:47 AM
My Latent Calvinism (product of Presbyterian Childhood) reasserted itself at the same time and I came to the discovery that I was more a Presbie than a Baptist. I have the honor of changing from Southern Baptist to Presbyterian (PCA) while being in my first (and only) year of PhD studies at the largest Baptist Seminary in the World. Boy were they upset with me.;)

You don't have to be a Calvinist in order to be A-mil Im pleased to say. ;)

Cyber

9Marksfan
Oct 6th 2008, 12:31 PM
Hmm, guess my version of Amillenialism is different from others.

I don't believe that the "millenium" is happening at this moment in heaven.

I don't believe that a "millenium" exists or will exist literally.

I believe that the "millenium" is symbolic of a time in the future when Christ will restore the Earth to its pre-fall form, while keeping the tempter out of it, until such time to release the accuser to test mankind again, before essentially rewriting the Eden story by deus ex machina-ing Satan and his followers out of the picture.
Following is the NEW Heaven and the NEW Earth, and behold all things have passed away.

Hmm - you actually sound like a post-trib Historic Premillennialist, but just not treating it as a literal 1000 years - there's actually quite an overlap between Historic Premil and Amill - in fact guys like JC Ryle and CH Spurgeon (probably the greatest two evangelical UK preachers of the 19th century) were both Historic Premill-ers.

David Taylor
Oct 6th 2008, 01:06 PM
I know it is the boring position and thus gets little discussion but there is an exegetical case to be made for it.

I was dispensational pretrib Premill for about 20 years; then really began to question the pretrib view; its roots; and what appeared to me to only be eisogetical foundations....I ended up Amill (after studying PreWrath, Postmill and Historic Premill); and have been Amill for a little over 10 years.

ananias
Oct 6th 2008, 01:16 PM
The amount of credit that people give to Satan is almost irresponsible, I say.

Given the vast number of Christians who believe that Satan has personally attacked them (and they can't be mistaken, remember they've got that Holy Spirit!), and the vast distance between them practically requires Satan to be omnipresent in order to carry out as much chaos as people give him credit for.



The key word is deceive, Mark:

"And he cast him into the abyss and shut him up and set a seal on him, that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled. And after that he must be loosed a little time." (Rev.20: 3).

"And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev.12: 17).

IMO, relic-worship, Islam, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witness movement, etc etc are all evidence that Satan has not been bound, and therefore still has the ability to deceive mankind - and his greatest enemy is the true church (those who are sealed by the Holy Spirit). He will double his efforts against each and every one of us - and it's deception (false doctrine) that renders the church useless in a fallen world.

IMO, the only One who is strong enough to bind Satan is the same One who defeated him at Calvary.

ananias

ananias
Oct 6th 2008, 01:25 PM
I would like to hear a detailed presentation of this position. Do you have some good links?

Check "what is the sign of the return" in End Times chat :)

John146
Oct 7th 2008, 04:23 PM
Hey John146

I was a default dispesationlist for most of my Christian Life, I would occasionally read a bit about other positions but most of the Churches I attened in my adult life were dispesationalist some more heavily than others.
As I started to get involved in minstry activites mostly evagelism I felt compelled to study the Bible and theology. I encounterd other positions, wow! I ultimately went to seminary (Baptist) were I was able to really study the doctrine Ray Summers commetary on Revelation put to rest dispensationalism in my thinking. My Latent Calvinism (product of Presbyterian Childhood) reasserted itself at the same time and I came to the discovery that I was more a Presbie than a Baptist. I have the honor of changing from Southern Baptist to Presbyterian (PCA) while being in my first (and only) year of PhD studies at the largest Baptist Seminary in the World. Boy were they upset with me.;)Thanks. That's a lot of different types of influences you've had there. I'm glad you knew enough to study it for yourself instead of letting others tell you what you should believe.

Eric

My heart's Desire
Oct 7th 2008, 08:03 PM
I'm not a-mil but do all a-mil hold to the same symbolism as all the other a-mils or do each have their own symbols? Do for the most part ya'll have a system you hold to? In other words...this passage symbolizes such and such and you all agree the same or difference. Sorry, I don't have a specific verse or symbol.

John146
Oct 7th 2008, 09:55 PM
I'm not a-mil but do all a-mil hold to the same symbolism as all the other a-mils or do each have their own symbols? Do for the most part ya'll have a system you hold to? In other words...this passage symbolizes such and such and you all agree the same or difference. Sorry, I don't have a specific verse or symbol.This is hard to answer unless you can give an example or be more specific. I will say that they are subcategories within amil, which are partial preterist, futurist, idealist and historicist. So, not all amils agree on everything related to end times theology.

We'd all agree that Satan was bound at the cross or thereabouts. We'd all agree that the thousand years is not literal but figurative and is followed by Satan's little season which ends at the second coming of Christ. We'd almost all agree that the general resurrection of all the dead, saved and lost, occurs at the second coming of Christ after the thousand years. We would almost all agree that the day of judgment/reward of all people takes place at that time. The understanding of the first resurrection varies a little bit, but no amil believes that it refers to the physical resurrection of believers that occurs at the second coming of Christ.

All amils believe that Christ has been reigning in heaven since His ascension to the right hand of the Father and that the dead in Christ reign with Him. And since Paul teaches that we sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:5-6), most amils would agree that believers who are physically alive reign with Him as well, in a spiritual sense.

That's the basics, anyway. If you have any other questions about it, let us know. I think part of the reason people dismiss amil is mostly because they don't understand it. Many premils who have taken the time to understand it may not all adopt this position as their own, but they still respect it because they understand it and know that many believers hold this position, which you wouldn't necessarily know if you based it on what's popular in books and on TV and so on.

jeffweeder
Oct 7th 2008, 11:59 PM
I never knew for many years what to make of the end times scriptures, and what category i fell into.
Didnt know much about categorys, but found myself an amilleniest.

Never been comfortable calling myself anything in the 28 years of my christian walk, but these last 2 years has seen me comfortably say that i am amil, as scriptures have seemed to fall into place for me.
Its like ive been doing a jigsaw puzzle and the last few pieces ive put in has given me a good idea of what the whole thing looks like.

Exellent link Cyberseeker.

Do we all agree that when Christ comes for us we will be with him forever more........
Be ready today.

My heart's Desire
Oct 8th 2008, 03:42 AM
This is hard to answer unless you can give an example or be more specific. I will say that they are subcategories within amil, which are partial preterist, futurist, idealist and historicist. So, not all amils agree on everything related to end times theology.

We'd all agree that Satan was bound at the cross or thereabouts. We'd all agree that the thousand years is not literal but figurative and is followed by Satan's little season which ends at the second coming of Christ. We'd almost all agree that the general resurrection of all the dead, saved and lost, occurs at the second coming of Christ after the thousand years. We would almost all agree that the day of judgment/reward of all people takes place at that time. The understanding of the first resurrection varies a little bit, but no amil believes that it refers to the physical resurrection of believers that occurs at the second coming of Christ.

All amils believe that Christ has been reigning in heaven since His ascension to the right hand of the Father and that the dead in Christ reign with Him. And since Paul teaches that we sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:5-6), most amils would agree that believers who are physically alive reign with Him as well, in a spiritual sense.

That's the basics, anyway. If you have any other questions about it, let us know. I think part of the reason people dismiss amil is mostly because they don't understand it. Many premils who have taken the time to understand it may not all adopt this position as their own, but they still respect it because they understand it and know that many believers hold this position, which you wouldn't necessarily know if you based it on what's popular in books and on TV and so on.

Well, thank you. I think I was confusing some of a-mil with Preterist.
It reminds me of the Prophets who saw prophecy in mountain peaks yet they didn't see the valley of the church age. I suppose if I only read the book of Revelation and not take other books of O.T prophecy into consideration I might see a-mil points, but I'm staying pre-mil. I knew about it years and years before any movies or books came out....well, I can't say that entirely either. Seems I saw a 3 part end of days movie in the 70's. ;) I've heard it said that to see the pre mil view one almost has to be dispensationist and I see that more and more. I guess I've always believed that way just didn't know it had a name.

Cyberseeker
Oct 8th 2008, 05:50 AM
We'd all agree that Satan was bound at the cross.
Yep


We'd all agree that the thousand years is not literal but figurative and is followed by Satan's little season which ends at the second coming of Christ.
Yep


We'd almost all agree that the general resurrection of all the dead, saved and lost, occurs at the second coming of Christ
Yep


We would almost all agree that the day of judgment/reward of all people takes place at that time.
Yep


All amils believe that Christ has been reigning in heaven since His ascension to the right hand of the Father and that the dead in Christ reign with Him.
Yep


most amils would agree that believers who are physically alive reign with Him as well, in a spiritual sense.
Yep

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2008, 08:30 AM
**Mod Reminder**
Just a reminder to stay on topic with the OP folks.
If you want to challenge peoples views who are posting their answers to the OP; please do so by starting a new thread to bring up your concerns.

That will help the OP stay on topic; and not derail his thread.