Are There Amillennialists Among Us?

Alright, so then describe it for me if you would please? If Jesus is not on a throne reigning in a millenial kingdom, what is the nature of this 1,000 year period? Is it more of what we have now?

 

Jesus reigns even now. So it's too late to call anything pre-kingdom. It's pre-millennial. Nobody claims to be a pre-kingdomist. People say they're pre-millennialist. There's a reason for that, you know.

 

For the record, one can reject the pre-tribulation rapture and still hold to a premillennial return of Christ, along with a literal 1000 year reign. Are you sure that Piper is post-millennial, or does he just reject the pre-trib rapture? Some in the progressive dispy camp reject a pre-trib rapture, but still hold to a pre-mill return of Christ with a 1000 year reign. The Historic Pre-Mill position also holds to this.

 

When the following folks are beheaded and refuse the mark...

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." - Revelation 20:4​

...will they reign with Christ a thousand years or will they have already reigned with Christ prior to being beheaded since "Jesus reigns even now"?

 

This is my last answer to you. What the Bible says is obvious. They reign with Christ during the millennium. You want to run with this much farther than the Bible goes by calling this THE kingdom, and then attributing all references to the kingdom to this particular 1,000 year period and nothing else. You're wrong. Some of the details you cite are correct. However, you're practicing eisegesis to force your false doctrine onto the details. It's as simple as that.

 

I'm going to miss your witty retorts :tear:

Amen Brother! :thumbsup:

If I thought I would be blessed to have one more answer from you, I would ask...How does a king reign without a kingdom?

REIGN, v.i. rane. [L. regno, a derivative of rego, regnum.]

1. To possess or exercise sovereign power or authority; to rule; to exercise government, as a king or emperor; or to hold the supreme power. George the third reigned over Great Britain more than fifty years.

Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness. Is. 32.

2. To be predominant; to prevail.

Pestilent diseases which commonly reign in summer or autumn.

3. To rule; to have superior or uncontrolled dominion. Romans 6. (Source: Webster's 1828)​

 

Luke 22:29-30
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Are there 12 Apostles sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel? If there aren't, are you sure that we are presently in what Jesus refers to as 'my kingdom'?

 

Okay, one LAST answer. Rufus, of course it's a kingdom THEN just as it is NOW. Just because there is a future kingdom doesn't mean that there is only ONE type of kingdom, and all references to the kingdom must be to the future kingdom.

Of the ME folks, you're the most straightforward, as far as I can tell. But you still share the approach of logical fallacies with your friends. You ask questions to which there are obvious answers, but then take a huge leap of logic to make them work out to your final doctrine.

All you'd have to do to make it totally absurd is to say, "Is 2+2 really equal to 4? Yes? Okay, then ME must be true." Your (plural - ME folks) questions are more closely related to the end result than that, but you (plural) still leave a huge gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Put more simply, anyone can string together a bunch of questions to which the answers are "yes, yes, kingdom, yes, etc." It is a non-sequitur to say that this all leads you to the conclusion that ME is true.

 

So, if two plus two equals four, your response is always going to be 'but it could be some other four'? If God says adulterers will not inherit the kingdom, he could be talking about any one of an indefinite number of periods of time when believers may or may not be reigning over something resembling a kingdom, but it certainly isn't that millennium that we are pre- of.

 

[FONT=&quot]All the kingdoms of the world are presently under Satan, as we are told in Luke 4:5-6. At the second coming of Christ, they shall be taken over by the Lord Jesus Christ. Revelation 11:15 says, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ and he shall reign forever and ever”. Anyone who thinks he is ruling in the kingdom today would be ruling under Satan and not the Lord Jesus Christ. [/FONT]

 

Luk 17:21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Jhn 15:19If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Seems the Kingdom is within His people who are not of the world.

 

So, you reject over 200 verses in favor of 1, which even the KJV translators supplied the correct (and concordant) translation of?

Satan is the ruler of this present age.

Are you sure you want to be a part of this current kingdom?

Just as with David and Saul, Jesus is surrounding himself currently with loyal followers who will rule in the future when he ascends the throne. Just like David, Jesus has been anointed king, but his kingdom is future. Just like with David, his kingdom is future because the one who rightly rules presently has not yet been kicked out. That doesn't happen until the book of the Revelation.

 

HoG; read the above scripture and see that the Kingdom is here now, within the saved and is not of the world where satan rules. So you are wrong.

Now the future Kingdoms, there is just one and it this one we have today. In the future the bodies also will be delivered into that Kingdom, that is what all the other Kingdom scripture is about. The resurrection of the bodies and being a part of that Kingdom and then that same Kingdom will be delivered up to the Father.

 

Since the Scriptures say "among", I will stick with that, thank you very much.

 

Greek for:
within
1787
entoV
entos
en-tos'
from en - en 1722; inside (adverb or noun):--within.


At 03:34 24/07/01, Andrej Ricnik wrote:

>Luther translated:"inside you", and from
>my classical greek I'd agree with him.

I'd exercise caution about any seamless connection with classical greek:
have you looked at BAGD?
There you will find, undeer ENTOS, a note that:
>>in our lit. only as improper prep. w. gen. inside, within, within the
limits of (Lucian, Dial. Mort. 14, 5; Jos., Bell. 3, <<<
Furthermore, where BAGD speculates that ENTOS hUMWN " may mean within you,
in your hearts (cf. Ps 38:4; 102:1; 108:22, " it immediately points out
that all three citations are actually ENTOS MOU;



What ever!!!

 

Just as those around David were made a part of his kingdom, even before he ascended the throne. They didn't have the reality until later.

 

I'm appy to be listed amongst the Amillenialsts, I belive it to be the most consistant scriptural teaching. However, if God decides to do it different, then that is OK, He knows much better than any of us what He has planned.

Regards
Bob

 

TCGreek, I hesitate to write this, knowing how much more knowledgeable you are than me, but is not Amillennialism a misnomer? The word literally means "no millenium", but amillennialists do not deny that there is a millennium. The website: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/eschatology/esc-amillenial.htm says:

The amillennialist believes that the Kingdom of God was inaugurated at Christ's resurrection (hence the term "inaugurated millennialism") at which point he gained victory over both Satan and the Curse. Christ is even now reigning (hence the term "nunc-millennialism" — nunc means "now") at the right hand of the Father over His church. After this present age has ended, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. The term "amillennialism" is actually a misnomer for it implies that Revelation 20:1-6 is ignored; in fact, the amillennialist's hermeneutic interprets it (and in fact, much of apocalyptic literature) non-literally. ​

My answer to your second question is yes - I am one.

 

Thanks David;