Question for Amill's only

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wait a minute, so you are NOT able to understand multiple Scripture Witnesses in God's Word that do not... occur in the same Chapter???

You bet the 1 Peter 4:5-6 Scripture is about Jesus preaching The Gospel to the "spirits in prison" of 1 Peter 3...

1 Peter 4:5-6
5 Who shall give account to Him That is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
KJV

1 Peter 3:18-19
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 9
KJV

Looks like YOU NEED SOME DIRECTION as to what the REAL SUBJECT is about. (And I thought this was a Bible-believing forum.)

They were preached to while they were still alive. What Peter was saying in those verses is that the Spirit, in the past, had preached to those who are now dead when they were alive. Some may have not realized that the gospel was preached to anyone before Christ came, but it was. That is the point Peter was making. So, they will be judged based on their response to what was revealed to them just as we all will be.

Once someone is dead, it's too late for them to repent. Do you actually think that the Spirit went to preach to people who were physically dead as if they still had a chance to repent at that point? That is nonsense and a doctrine straight from the pit of hell. This temporary life is the only opportunity that people get to repent and that has always been true. To think otherwise means you are allowing Satan to dupe you into thinking there are second chances. No, there are not. Today is the day of salvation. You don't know if tomorrow will come. Once someone dies, that's it. No second chances.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are so unbelievably ignorant. You falsely represent Amill constantly. Have you no shame? Amill DOES NOT claim that the rebellion happens within the Millennium. Stop lying. Satan's little season obviously occurs after the thousand years are over as Revelation 20 plainly states. Amills do not claim otherwise.

I think ewq's larger point is that Amills have the same biblical formula that Premills have. Satan's Little Season follows the Millennial Age. So how can the Amill version of the Millennium not contain the same "goat infestation" and "rampant sin?" This certainly leads, in their scheme, to a Satanic rebellion, whether it occurs in ancient times or in the future.

Clearly, Amill's have a different definition of the Millennial Kingdom than Premill's do! In removing the literalness of the Millennium, all efforts to characterize it as "peaceful" are undermined, rendering it an exclusively Christian domain. And that is hardly "turning swords into plowshares," in my view. The whole meaning of Israel's restoration is lost, along with any sense of Christ's Kingdom reigning upon the earth to defeat war.

It seems that the Amill sense of Christ's Millennial Kingdom is hardly a Kingdom of peace at all, with Satan bound? It is purely a "spiritual Kingdom," without any connection to the real world.

 

[Randy Kluth]

They were preached to while they were still alive. What Peter was saying in those verses is that the Spirit, in the past, had preached to those who are now dead when they were alive. Some may have not realized that the gospel was preached to anyone before Christ came, but it was. That is the point Peter was making. So, they will be judged based on their response to what was revealed to them just as we all will be.

Sounds like a reasonable interpretation to me! Thank you.

 

[WPM]

He lies constantly about Amills. It's pathetic. He acts as if we are all preterists, which is far from the truth.

Exactly. It is the wilful misrepresenting that testifies that he struggles to pin anything on Amil.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly. It is the wilful misrepresenting that testifies that he struggles to pin anything on Amil.

He seems to have an issue with something that some partial preterists believe and he wonders why they would believe something that is similar to what pre-tribs believe (even though he too believes some things that they believe).

So, he should just address them specfically about it instead of lumping all Amils together as if we agree on everything. We obviously don't, just as Premils don't all agree on everything.

 

[WPM]

I think ewq's larger point is that Amills have the same biblical formula that Premills have. Satan's Little Season follows the Millennial Age. So how can the Amill version of the Millennium not contain the same "goat infestation" and "rampant sin?" This certainly leads, in their scheme, to a Satanic rebellion, whether it occurs in ancient times or in the future.

Clearly, Amill's have a different definition of the Millennial Kingdom than Premill's do! In removing the literalness of the Millennium, all efforts to characterize it as "peaceful" are undermined, rendering it an exclusively Christian domain. And that is hardly "turning swords into plowshares," in my view. The whole meaning of Israel's restoration is lost, along with any sense of Christ's Kingdom reigning upon the earth to defeat war.

It seems that the Amill sense of Christ's Millennial Kingdom is hardly a Kingdom of peace at all, with Satan bound? It is purely a "spiritual Kingdom," without any connection to the real world.

Who is arguing? That is what the text says. But we do not foist a fictional narrative upon Rev 20 to support our theology that the text does not teach.

All this fantasy about Jesus on earth ruling with a rod of iron over millions of compliant mortals for 1000 years - where sin is essentially subjugated, where the earth is returned to Edenic splendor, where mortals and glorified saints interact, where a Millennial temple is built, with the full restoration of the full old covenant apparatus, is simply not there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think ewq's larger point is that Amills have the same biblical formula that Premills have.

Can you show me where he made this point? Why are you so quick to defend him when it is undeniable that he is clearly misrepresenting what many Amills believe?

Satan's Little Season follows the Millennial Age. So how can the Amill version of the Millennium not contain the same "goat infestation" and "rampant sin?" This certainly leads, in their scheme, to a Satanic rebellion, whether it occurs in ancient times or in the future.

Obviously, those things occur during the thousand years in the Amill view. So? Not really seeing your point here.

Clearly, Amill's have a different definition of the Millennial Kingdom than Premill's do!

No, really?

In removing the literalness of the Millennium, all efforts to characterize it as "peaceful" are undermined, rendering it an exclusively Christian domain. And that is hardly "turning swords into plowshares," in my view. The whole meaning of Israel's restoration is lost, along with any sense of Christ's Kingdom reigning upon the earth to defeat war.

That is your understanding of what is supposed to happen, which happens to be very similar to what the Pharisees were expecting. Think about that.

It seems that the Amill sense of Christ's Millennial Kingdom is hardly a Kingdom of peace at all, with Satan bound? It is purely a "spiritual Kingdom," without any connection to the real world.

Is there a problem with His kingdom being a spiritual kingdom? I don't understand your perspective at all.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Can you show me where he made this point? Why are you so quick to defend him when it is undeniable that he is clearly misrepresenting what many Amills believe?

I'm not saying he's making the same exact point, but the same general point, that what Amills complain about Premills would apply the same to them. I'm *not* supporting his claims against that specific Amill position in question--I was asking him the question, since I obviously indicated I wasn't clear.

Obviously, those things occur during the thousand years in the Amill view. So? Not really seeing your point here.


No, really?


That is your understanding of what is supposed to happen, which happens to be very similar to what the Pharisees were expecting. Think about that.


Is there a problem with His kingdom being a spiritual kingdom? I don't understand your perspective at all.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

No, I don't have a problem with the Kingdom of heaven having an impact on the present age. After all, Christ came down from heaven and met, face to face, with mankind.

The problem I have with a Kingdom Now theology, or a Realized Eschatology, is that the promises associated by the Prophets with the Kingdom of God promised world peace and the deliverance of God's People from evil nations. That can't be viewed as a reality in the present age when Premills say the Kingdom has already come.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Who is arguing? That is what the text says. But we do not foist a fictional narrative upon Rev 20 to support our theology that the text does not teach.

All this fantasy about Jesus on earth ruling with a rod of iron over millions of compliant mortals for 1000 years - where sin is essentially subjugated, where the earth is returned to Edenic splendor, where mortals and glorified saints interact, where a Millennial temple is built, with the full restoration of the full old covenant apparatus, is simply not there.

Why do you keep leveling this complaint to me, when I've said repeatedly that I'm not a Dispensationalist and do not hold to a restored Covenant of Law? As to whether a future Millennial Age is "fictional" or not is a matter of which position you prefer to hold. From my perspective, the Amill position is pure fiction, holding to the notion of a Present Kingdom where Sin ravages the earth and Goats infest the world. ;)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not saying he's making the same exact point, but the same general point, that what Amills complain about Premills would apply the same to them. I'm *not* supporting his claims against that specific Amill position in question--I was asking him the question, since I obviously indicated I wasn't clear.

Not really sure what you're talking about here, but whatever.

No, I don't have a problem with the Kingdom of heaven having an impact on the present age. After all, Christ came down from heaven and met, face to face, with mankind.

Is that somehow not enough for you?

The problem I have with a Kingdom Now theology, or a Realized Eschatology, is that the promises associated by the Prophets with the Kingdom of God promised world peace and the deliverance of God's People from evil nations.

That will happen. It's called the new heavens and new earth where there will be no more death, mourning, crying or pain.

That can't be viewed as a reality in the present age when Premills say the Kingdom has already come.

No one is saying that's a reality in the present age. The reality in the present age is that we've been given peace by way of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us and we have been spiritually saved, have had our sins forgiven and have been delivered from being slaves to sin.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why do you keep leveling this complaint to me, when I've said repeatedly that I'm not a Dispensationalist and do not hold to a restored Covenant of Law? As to whether a future Millennial Age is "fictional" or not is a matter of which position you prefer to hold. From my perspective, the Amill position is pure fiction, holding to the notion of a Present Kingdom where Sin ravages the earth and Goats infest the world. ;)

Are you denying the reality of "a Present Kingdom"?

Is the following passage not referring to "a Present Kingdom"?

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Are you denying the reality of "a Present Kingdom"?

Is the following passage not referring to "a Present Kingdom"?

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Yes, I'm denying a Realized Eschatology, in which the promised Kingdom of God is already realized. I'm not denying the Kingdom of God in heaven is already having a spiritual impact on the earth in the present age.

That will happen. It's called the new heavens and new earth where there will be no more death, mourning, crying or pain.


No one is saying that's a reality in the present age. The reality in the present age is that we've been given peace by way of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us and we have been spiritually saved, have had our sins forgiven and have been delivered from being slaves to sin.

Then we have a lot in common.

 

[WPM]

Why do you keep leveling this complaint to me, when I've said repeatedly that I'm not a Dispensationalist and do not hold to a restored Covenant of Law? As to whether a future Millennial Age is "fictional" or not is a matter of which position you prefer to hold. From my perspective, the Amill position is pure fiction, holding to the notion of a Present Kingdom where Sin ravages the earth and Goats infest the world. ;)

The issue is that you cannot support from Scripture what you claim in Rev. That is the core issue. That is what we oppose. I acknowledge that you do not promote this. But most Premils promote the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of the old covenant.

 

[covenantee]

the Amill position is pure fiction, holding to the notion of a Present Kingdom where Sin ravages the earth and Goats infest the world.

Does sin ravage the child of God?
Do goats infest the child of God?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I'm denying a Realized Eschatology, in which the promised Kingdom of God is already realized. I'm not denying the Kingdom of God in heaven is already having a spiritual impact on the earth in the present age.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you try to speak more plainly instead of using terms like "Realized Eschatology", whatever that even means? Do you or do you not believe that we are currently in the kingdom of God in a spiritual sense right now? In other words, do you believe the following verse is referring to a current reality or not?

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

Keep in mind that I understand the kingdom of God will be manifested in its fullness in the future. In my view that will be when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. But, I'm asking about your understanding of the kingdom as it exists right now.

Then we have a lot in common.

I don't believe we have a lot in common, but maybe we have something in common? What did you mean exactly when you said that?

 

[Davy]

Stop being ignorant by thinking that all Amills believe everything exactly the same. There are futurist Amills like Truth7t7 who believe in a future Antichrist and all that nonsense just like you.

I only believe what God's Word says, so I don't care if others want to believe doctrines of men instead, but I will... point out that difference as necessary, just as all... those who actually 'keep' God's Word as written have the authority to do so.

 

[Davy]

They were preached to while they were still alive.

You're making me LAUGH!!

1 Peter 4:5-6
5 Who shall give account to Him That is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

6 For, for this cause was the gospel preached also...
... to them that are dead, ...
... that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
KJV

Even in that last phrase, "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit", is a DIRECT COMPARISON to their being in the 'spirit" when The Gospel was preached to them!

So why... would you go DIRECTLY AGAINST God's written Word there???

 

[Randy Kluth]

The issue is that you cannot support from Scripture what you claim in Rev. That is the core issue. That is what we oppose. I acknowledge that you do not promote this. But most Premils promote the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of the old covenant.

I'm on your side on this one. I'm very much opposed to the idea of a restored covenant of Law. I'm in the Reformation in this regard. No Law. All Grace. In Christ alone....

 

[WPM]

I'm on your side on this one. I'm very much opposed to the idea of a restored covenant of Law. I'm in the Reformation in this regard. No Law. All Grace. In Christ alone....

I applaud you for that because that is a minority position among Premils.

 

[Marty fox]

I think ewq's larger point is that Amills have the same biblical formula that Premills have. Satan's Little Season follows the Millennial Age. So how can the Amill version of the Millennium not contain the same "goat infestation" and "rampant sin?" This certainly leads, in their scheme, to a Satanic rebellion, whether it occurs in ancient times or in the future.

Clearly, Amill's have a different definition of the Millennial Kingdom than Premill's do! In removing the literalness of the Millennium, all efforts to characterize it as "peaceful" are undermined, rendering it an exclusively Christian domain. And that is hardly "turning swords into plowshares," in my view. The whole meaning of Israel's restoration is lost, along with any sense of Christ's Kingdom reigning upon the earth to defeat war.

It seems that the Amill sense of Christ's Millennial Kingdom is hardly a Kingdom of peace at all, with Satan bound? It is purely a "spiritual Kingdom," without any connection to the real world.

Actually I’m an amill and what I believe is that satans little season is at the end part of the millennial age not after it. It’s after the binding ends not the reigning