[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate  (Read 5857 times)

Paulma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
  • I'm a llama!
Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« on: November 26, 2005, 12:39:59 PM »
Guys

I thought some of you might be interested in an official ongoing Amil - v - Premil Debate between an Amil Board and a Premil Board. Both teams have 3 members, Dave T from this board is one of the Amil team.

 http://p072.ezboard.com/fendtimeforumfrm46

Paul

Aaron

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Gender: Male
  • God loves you!
    • THE AARON PAPERS
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2005, 02:54:10 PM »
Hi Paul,
I was wondering if your debate on the Amillennialism/ Premillennialism views on Eschatology is designed to debate the issue or is it designed to better understand the issue? I wanted to post some of my differing conclusions on these two views of Eschatology, but I’m concerned that the group might choose to ban me rather than discuss these difficult issues.


Here is my pending post:
After a lengthy independent study of Theology/Eschatology, I came to the startling conclusion that there is no Biblical basis for even promoting any specific doctrine on MILLENNIALISM. This conclusion came about when I was finishing a study of the Great Kingdom Parables that we find in the gospels. It seemed very strange, at least to me, that an event of such magnitude as a supposed “Millennial Kingdom” was not given even so much as a vague reference in these Kingdom Parables. Matter of fact, I might suggest that the term MILLENNIUM is far to complex to be limited to any certain Eschatological view. Although the Amillennial view, because of its simplicity, has far fewer eschatological problems, their view is yet deficient when we consider Eschatology from all of the Scriptures-looking at the larger picture. Then the Premillennial view, in the way in which it has long been presented, is not Scripturally viable. Even though they do have some valid points within their Eschatology, their futuristic approach to Scripture leaves them with a considerable body of private interpretation rather than allowing the Bible interpret the Bible. I believe that Rapprochement Eschatology is the only approach that will allow us to reach a workable theory in Eschatology that is Scripturally defensible.

Please tell me what you think-will this post be accepted on the Amillennialism v Premillennialism debate site?
Aaron

Dave Taylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2005, 04:07:24 PM »
Quote
Although the Amillennial view, because of its simplicity, has far fewer eschatological problems, their view is yet deficient when we consider Eschatology from all of the Scriptures-looking at the larger picture.

Aaron,
What eschatological problems?

What 'is yet deficient'?


Aaron

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Gender: Male
  • God loves you!
    • THE AARON PAPERS
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2005, 09:54:04 AM »
Hi Dave,
the problems or deficiencies in any one Eschatology is very complex. I have written in detail concerning many of these various situations. If you like, just click my www link and check out the Rapprochement Eschatology section.

Dave Taylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2005, 10:14:37 AM »
Here are a few exerpts from Aarons webpage and teachings....I'll add some more later when I have time....it takes a while to dig through all the pages....

Quote
aaron wrote:
I would note that my main problem with the A-millennial view continues to be their failure to recognize the dispensational distinction that is made in the Scriptures for those who are in Christ.

This resurrection principle, is best received through the incorporation of a small part of the eschatology from Classical Premillennialism:

 (3) at the height of Antichrist’s power Christ will appear in heavenly glory to triumph over all his enemies, resurrecting the saints and establishing his Kingdom which will last a thousand years: the seventh day, Sabbath, or Millennium.”
 
 
 This statement is also true, but there is much more to ESCHATOLOGY than this simple statement expresses: “you are sealed to the day of redemption, (Eph.iv.30,) which means the day of judgment.”  The first part of this, “the day of redemption”, occurs very early in the day of the Lord, and the second part, “the day of judgment”, happens very late in the day of the lord.  Matter of fact, the final judgment will occur in that last portion of the day of the Lord, which is defined in Scripture as one specific hour. 
 
 

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2005, 07:45:32 PM »
Thought I'd look at his eschatological position.

However, after reading and reading his verbose style it does not lend itself to a solid conclusion. I think he is teaching that there are two resurrections separated by an unknown duration of time during the period called "The Day of the Lord". He has the eternal church raptured at the beginning of this unknown and protracted period and another resurrection at the end.

In the middle of the "Day of the Lord, after the rapture, comes the loosing of Satan and at the end of the "Day of the Lord" comes the resurrection of all the dead. If I have his teaching correct, he believes that at this resurrection the rest of the elect who did not make it in the earlier resurrection are joined with the eternal church in heaven raptured earlier, thus joining the entire Church as the Bride of Christ. From here the Bride is presented as complete to the Father, all rule, and dominion is declared Christ’s.

Then those remaining on the earth, the unregenerate, are judged and cast into the Lake of Fire.

Unfortunately, his writing is not succinct enough, taking too many parenthetical curves and forks to know what his true meaning is. There is something to be said for saying things plainly.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

bloodstone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2005, 07:48:08 PM »
Here are a few exerpts from Aarons webpage and teachings....I'll add some more later when I have time....it takes a while to dig through all the pages....

aaron wrote:
I would note that my main problem with the A-millennial view continues to be their failure to recognize the dispensational distinction that is made in the Scriptures for those who are in Christ.

This resurrection principle, is best received through the incorporation of a small part of the eschatology from Classical Premillennialism:

 (3) at the height of Antichrist’s power Christ will appear in heavenly glory to triumph over all his enemies, resurrecting the saints and establishing his Kingdom which will last a thousand years: the seventh day, Sabbath, or Millennium.”

 
 


I find there is utter futility in debating with the teachers (as opposed to mere lay people) of the premillennial position. Because rather than seek to learn, they are puffed up with carnal knowledge and inevitably seek to teach. And that is the insurmountable problem. Their refusal to accept at face value almost any scripture that opposes what they have been taught. 

I once held to the premillennial position, but once the truth was demonstrated to me, I was compelled by rational logic and biblical honesty to accept what I was shown. This is virtually never the case with premillennial teachers. They seldom accept any opposing view, no matter how much scripture supports it. As I say, it is utter futility. Like trying to convince Jews that Jesus is the Christ. Yes, yes, I know that here and there someone is convinced of God, but for the most part they will never accept those scriptures at face value no matter how clear they are to you and me. The same with Premillennialists. They move mountains rather than listen to the scriptures. And I'm sure most of us have heard all the dodging and side-stepping before.

bloodstone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2005, 08:00:48 PM »
Hi Paul,
After a lengthy independent study of Theology/Eschatology, I came to the startling conclusion that there is no Biblical basis for even promoting any specific doctrine on MILLENNIALISM.

I'm sorry, this makes no sense at all. If scripture speaks of the millennium or the thousand years, where souls live and reign with Christ, then there is biblical basis for promoting a specific doctrine on the millennium. How could you think otherwise?


Quote
This conclusion came about when I was finishing a study of the Great Kingdom Parables that we find in the gospels. It seemed very strange, at least to me, that an event of such magnitude as a supposed “Millennial Kingdom” was not given even so much as a vague reference in these Kingdom Parables.

The kingdom parables speak on nothing much else but the millennial reign of Christ. But if you are looking for some other kingdom besides Christ's kingdom and the believers who now reign in it, then yes, you could miss the millennial reign.


Aaron

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Gender: Male
  • God loves you!
    • THE AARON PAPERS
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2005, 10:58:32 AM »
My friends, I really do appreciate your interest and comments, but I never intended to start World War 3. Though I would also appreciate your quotes from my work be complete with Scripture references for context. Nevertheless, I will try to briefly respond to some of your posts. Though some would think that my writings are a bit wordy, the importance and complexity of the subjects require nothing less. I also believe the information offered within these notes is an Eschatological imperatives for understanding the institutional position and role for Israel and the Christian Church. Keep in mind that the Systematic Study in Biblical Theology and Covenantal Eschatology Revealed studies preceded the Rapprochement Eschatology Study. The Rapprochement Eschatology study is more or less a summary review of these earlier studies. I would hope that you would thoroughly read my notes before you form your final opinions.
Thanks!

I believe the key to understanding the need for the separate gathering/ or rapture for the invisible Church, which Amillennialism does not yet recognize, is mandated by the sequence of events recorded in Scripture. Since the priesthood of Christ, adorned in their “white robes” (clothed in fine linen, white and pure Rev.19:8 and 14), come with Christ into the battle of Armageddon, it only makes sense that the invisible Church/ elect priesthood of Christ be gathered/ or raptured pre-Armageddon. Additionally, Revelation 19 strongly suggests the marriage ceremony between Christ and His bride in heaven is pre-Armageddon as well. Then the primary Scriptures that describe the General Resurrection/ the Resurrection of the last day/ or the resurrection of the dead-Mat.25:31-46 and Rev.20:11-15 do not indicate the presence of any living beings at this event, as we surely find present at the resurrection of the living-the invisible Church.

I don’t believe I made any reference to “In the middle of the Day of the Lord”. Satan is most likely loosed at the beginning of the Day of the Lord where he is given the liberty to once again deceive all of the nations in the four corners of the earth. With the close of “the Year of Jehovah’s favor”/ or the dispensation of grace, the Restrainer/ or the Holy Spirit will be removed and the invisible Church gathered with the sounding of the seventh trumpet. Rev.11, Mat.24, Mk.13, 1Cor.15, 1Thes.4

I did not say the remainder of the peoples of God/ or the part of the Church that was not counted as a part of Christ’s holy priesthood would be carried up into heaven.  The corporate peoples of God/ the sheep of Mat.25 or the dead-the great and small of Rev.20 will inherit the Kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. Then we are told that it is the gathered priesthood of Christ that actually constitutes the completed Kingdom 1Cor.15. So you see, the invisible Church/ or priesthood must be gathered pre-Armageddon up into the clouds to meet their Lord in the air and then delivered up to God in heaven as the completed Kingdom.  It is there that they, clothed in fine linen, white and pure (Rev.19:8 and 14) attend the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev.19:1-10).  Then riding upon white horses, they follow their KING into the battle of Armageddon (Rev.19:11-21). If all of these things do not literally happen in their prophetic order, these resurrected sheep who are raised in the General Resurrection will have no Kingdom to inherit.
Christ’s rule also begins at the beginning of the Day of the Lord-at the sounding of the seventh trumpet-Rev.11:15
Consequently, according to the Scriptures, the bride/ the kingdom/ the body of Christ/ or the gathered priesthood must be delivered up to God pre-Armageddon.

I said the thousand years spoken of in Scripture is much to complex for any one specific doctrine on the millennium. That is, millennium can have a number of different meanings-Satan being bound, the souls of the saints reigning with Christ in heaven, or the Premillennial/ Dispensational millennium doctrine.

My basic statement on the Kingdom parables not promoting Millennialism was in opposition to the Premillennialism/ Dispensationalism doctrine.

But considering the Kingdom under the reign of Christ-the Kingdom presently has two differing states during this dispensation of grace-an earthly state where the Kingdom resides within us and a heavenly state were departed souls live and reign with Christ. Then it is the fulfillment of the 1Thes.4 prophesies that will bring these two groups together into the single entity called “the Kingdom” (1Cor.15:23-24).

Paulma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2006, 07:27:29 PM »
Guys

For those interested, the Amil Team have just presented their final rebuttal of the Premil presentation on The Character of the Earth following the 2nd Coming

See the Premil - v- Amil Debate: p072.ezboard.com/fendtimeforumfrm46

Paul

metro

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2006, 05:30:45 AM »
Here are a few exerpts from Aarons webpage and teachings....I'll add some more later when I have time....it takes a while to dig through all the pages....

aaron wrote:
I would note that my main problem with the A-millennial view continues to be their failure to recognize the dispensational distinction that is made in the Scriptures for those who are in Christ.

This resurrection principle, is best received through the incorporation of a small part of the eschatology from Classical Premillennialism:

 (3) at the height of Antichrist’s power Christ will appear in heavenly glory to triumph over all his enemies, resurrecting the saints and establishing his Kingdom which will last a thousand years: the seventh day, Sabbath, or Millennium.”

 
 


I find there is utter futility in debating with the teachers (as opposed to mere lay people) of the premillennial position. Because rather than seek to learn, they are puffed up with carnal knowledge and inevitably seek to teach. And that is the insurmountable problem. Their refusal to accept at face value almost any scripture that opposes what they have been taught.

I once held to the premillennial position, but once the truth was demonstrated to me, I was compelled by rational logic and biblical honesty to accept what I was shown. This is virtually never the case with premillennial teachers. They seldom accept any opposing view, no matter how much scripture supports it. As I say, it is utter futility. Like trying to convince Jews that Jesus is the Christ. Yes, yes, I know that here and there someone is convinced of God, but for the most part they will never accept those scriptures at face value no matter how clear they are to you and me. The same with Premillennialists. They move mountains rather than listen to the scriptures. And I'm sure most of us have heard all the dodging and side-stepping before.

hi bloodstone
could not have said that better   so can i have your thoughts on "the rapture"


Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Gender: Female
  • 🌴"But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God. -Psalm 52:8"
Re: Amillennialism vs Premillennialism Debate
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2018, 09:19:34 AM »
I said the thousand years spoken of in Scripture is much to complex for any one specific doctrine on the millennium. That is, millennium can have a number of different meanings-Satan being bound, the souls of the saints reigning with Christ in heaven, or the Premillennial/ Dispensational millennium doctrine.

Satan being bound or saints reigning are not different meanings of the millennium, those are different aspects of it. Satan is bound at the start of the millennium, that's not a different meaning of the word. And the saints reign with Christ during the millennium, and that's not a meaning of the millennium either. It's one aspect during it, as souls live and reign with Christ at this time or period. Like the nations not being deceived and the rest of the dead not living during this millennial period. These aren't meanings of the millennium, the millennium means 1000 years, it doesn't mean bound, reign or live not.

Aaron says the complexity of this subject makes it unattainable for any one doctrine of the millennium, and he puts forth what amounts to complexity and a lack of clarity as the answer.  I disagree. The complexity of this issue requires not only clarity but scripture backing and distinction between all these doctrines he's attempting to merge together. And his conclusion that the millennium can have a meaning of Premillennial / Dispensational doctrine is without any basis whatsoever.

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]