The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[Rich R]

LOL. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Can you please address what I said in post #10? I refuted your claim about Amils supposedly taking an allegorical approach to scripture. I showed how the foundation of our doctrine is based on clear, literal, straightforward scripture. So, can you address that? The mystery of Gentiles being fellowheirs with Jews of God's promises has nothing to do with the point I was making.

No need to get personal my friend. I read and understand what you said, but obviously I don't believe it. So what? You don't believe what I'm saying either. I wouldn't think that means you have a reading comprehension problem.

The mystery has everything to do with underestimating the 1,000 reign. As I understand it, amillenialism says that the 1,000 year reign is happening in our present age. Obviously, I don't see the scriptures saying anything of the sort. That reign will not occur during this age. All of God's promises to Israel will not be fulfilled until the fullness of the Gentiles, i.e. until this age, the age of the mystery, the church, ends with the gathering together of the dead and alive in Christ together with Christ in the air prior to the events of Revelation. The 1,000 year reign is part of those events. I think Rev 20 is clear on that.

 

[Rich R]

Might I suggest we all stop accusing each other of not replying to everything each of us says. It's well worn. We are all guilty of that, so no point in pointing fingers.

The fact is there is only so much time and I think we all reply to that which we consider most relevant to the discussion. It's not unusual in civil discourse. If someone wants clarification, there is a polite way to ask for it.

 

[David in NJ]

Well the Messiah was not at all hidden in the OT. The promise of a Messiah is all over the place in the OT. The mystery, however, was very much hidden. I think that is what your point b says.

In the OT:

Eph 2:11-12,

11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;​

​

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:​

​

In the NT:

Eph 3:5-6,

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;​

​

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:​

Question: How did Paul know this ???

CORRECT Answer: from the OT scriptures = Beginning in Genesis 17:4

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.”
Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying:
“As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.

Romans 4:3
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.

Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed,
not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all:
as it is written(Genesis), “I have made you a father of many nations”

 

[David in NJ]

Exactly. They give lip service to corroboration, as he did. Premils cannot address this because to do so would force them to abandon Premil, something they are not prepared to do.

FALSE - again!!!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No need to get personal my friend. I read and understand what you said, but obviously I don't believe it. So what?

So you like to make false accusations about Amil. That's typical of Premils who can't refute Amil.

Our understanding that the saved will not be resurrected 1,000+ years before the lost is based on straightforward scripture like this:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

This says that a singular hour (not multiple hours) are coming when all of the dead will be resurrected including all saved and lost dead people.

Our understanding that all unbelievers will be killed when Christ returns is based on straightforward scripture like this:

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

2 Peter 3:10 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. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 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?

And so on. So, this shows that what you said in your original post is false and you have no idea of what you're talking about.

You don't believe what I'm saying either. I wouldn't think that means you have a reading comprehension problem.

You didn't address what I said in my post, so that's why I said that.

The mystery has everything to do with underestimating the 1,000 reign.

Explain why then.

As I understand it, amillenialism says that the 1,000 year reign is happening in our present age.

Yes, because Christ has been reigning since His resurrection (Matthew 28:16-18, Eph 1:19-23, Col 1:12-13, Rev 1:5-6). Do you know that the word "thousand" is used figuratively several times in scripture including the verses which talk about God keeping His covenant "for a thousand generations" and that He owns "the cattle on a thousand hills" (Psalm 50:10)?

Obviously, I don't see the scriptures saying anything of the sort. That reign will not occur during this age. All of God's promises to Israel will not be fulfilled until the fullness of the Gentiles, i.e. until this age, the age of the mystery, the church, ends with the gathering together of the dead and alive in Christ together with Christ in the air prior to the events of Revelation. The 1,000 year reign is part of those events. I think Rev 20 is clear on that.

Your argument is not convincing at all. Do you not understand that the revealed mystery was that God made Gentile believers one body together with Israelite believers and that Gentile believers are now fellowcitizens and fellowheirs with Israelite believers of God's promises (Ephesians 3:1-6)? Salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ for Jew and Gentile believers alike is the fulfillment of the mystery. We don't need to wait for this temporal age to end before we start to experience the benefits of God's promises that we (Gentile believers) are fellowheirs of. In terms of the future fulfillment of those promises, that will come to fruition by way of the eternal new heavens and new earth that we will all inherit. Peter said that is what we are looking forward to in fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3:13), not an earthly millennial kingdom.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, I should have been more specific. Yes, Abraham's promise did include many nations. However, throughout the entire OT it was the Jews who were God's chosen people. As Galatians says, the Gentiles were without God and without hope.

That's Ephesians 2:11-12, not Galatians.

In other words, they were definitely not part of God's chosen people, those destined to inherit the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Yes, they were and they still are today! Paul says Gentiles believers are "fellowheirs" of God's promises. Why are you trying to make it so that they are not fellowheirs? That mystery was there, but hidden in the OT and revealed in the NT. It isn't that it wasn't taught in the OT, it was just not taught clearly there on purpose because it was God's plan for it to be revealed after sending His Son to the earth. But, that mystery hidden in the OT scriptures was revealed in the NT by the NT authors whose spiritual eyes were opened by the Holy Spirit to understand the OT prophecies.

Here is one example of an OT prophecy that refers to the Gentiles also being God's chosen people which no one realized until Paul clarified it.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

I wouldn't be surprised if you, as a premil, think this passage is about a future earthly kingdom established when Christ returns. But, it's not.

Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. 12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Can you see here how Paul quoted Isaiah 11:10 and applied it to the Gentiles being saved by what Jesus Christ did for them? No one understood what passages like those were talking about until it was revealed in the NT. And no one understood that Gentile believers would be fellowheirs with Israelite believers of God's promises made to Abraham.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ...29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Why do you talk in terms of Israel inheriting promises God made to them as if He made promises to Israel that don't also apply to the Gentiles? Why is all this still a mystery to you even though it is revealed in the NT?

But fast forward to the NT, and God reveals something He had up His sleeve all along, namely that the Gentile would in fact be fellowheirs and of the same body with the Jews. Notice that being fellowheirs and of the same body does not mean the church replaced Israel. They instead became one and the same. Nobody replaced anybody.

Gentiles being fellowheirs means that whatever God promised to Israel to inherit is promised to Gentile believers, also. But, you don't seem to believe that. You talk in terms of God fulfilling promises only to Israel for some reason despite the fact that Gentile believers are fellowheirs of those promises.

 

[Marty fox]

An often overlooked aspect of amillenial vs premillenial is the method of interpretation. It is generally agreed among scholars that those who hold to the amillenial view employ the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture whereas the premillenial view is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. So a study of the history of biblical interpretation may help shed some light on the matter. I'll attempt to give a far from exhaustive commentary on the matter.

There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method. He was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.

It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.

That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. With few exceptions, it wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

As I said, this is about as quick and dirty a summery of Biblical interpretation as quick and dirty gets. There is tons of information on the internet for anybody who wants to delver deeper into the matter. The main point I wanted to make was the amillenial vs premillenial ultimately comes down to allegory vs the plain meaning of scripture.

I want to clarify that I have nothing against those of the Catholic faith. I consider them my brothers and sisters and thus love them with my whole heart. But that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian church. Need I say, that the Protestant church also shares in the commission of many heinous acts throughout history? History is history. It is a record of things that actually transpired. It's not always pretty. The only solution to man's depravity will be when Jesus reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, when God renews the heavens and the earth, bringing them back to the original creation of Genesis, i.e. the renewed Garden of Eden.

Obviously the literal interpretation of the kingdom is the reason that Israel didn't recognize Jesus as their God and Messiah.

 

[Rich R]

Obviously the literal interpretation of the kingdom is the reason that Israel didn't recognize Jesus as their God and Messiah.

That's part of the reason, but the heart of their failure to recognize the Messiah is succinctly stated in Romans.

Rom 11:8,

(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.​

​

Just before Jesus ascended, he promised to return. The apostles replied by asking him if he would restore that kingdom at that time. They may have been among those who expected Jesus to establish his kingdom during his first appearance, but clearly they learned that not to be the case, that the promised kingdom would come at Jesus' second appearance. The apostles from that day forward never doubted that Jesus would return and at that time the promised everlasting kingdom would be established. I see nothing in the NT that would suggest otherwise.

Read the whole 11th chapter in Romans. It's highly relevant to the topic.

 

[David in NJ]

Obviously the literal interpretation of the kingdom is the reason that Israel didn't recognize Jesus as their God and Messiah.

CORRECT

What went wrong???

There are many OT Prophecies of a 'literal Kingdom of God".

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No... that isn't well-agreed on. There are no scholars today that hold a fully allegorical interpretation of Scripture. There are also no scholars today that hold a fully literal interpretation. We all do our best to figure out which bits have meaning beyond the surface level.

There are a few "scholars" who claim to have a fully literal interpretation, but when you start to talk about specifics, even they are forced to admit that, for instance, the king of Assyria was not literally a tree like Ezekiel says.

There are enormous amount of scholars who hold to what is fully known as the literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding the Scriptures.

They use the same method of accepting the words of Scripture as we all do in reading all other written materials.

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society

this does not mean that we do not recognize allegory in Scripture writings and the use of symbolic, parobolic and apocalyptic language. But we also recognize that it is SCripture itself that defines its own non literal writing.

What people misunderstand is that many passages of the OT and some in the NT can hace several applications (personal application) but that there is still only one interpretation, which shortly described is god meant what He said and said what He meant

 

[Marty fox]

That's part of the reason, but the heart of their failure to recognize the Messiah is succinctly stated in Romans.

Rom 11:8,

(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.​

​

Just before Jesus ascended, he promised to return. The apostles replied by asking him if he would restore that kingdom at that time. They may have been among those who expected Jesus to establish his kingdom during his first appearance, but clearly they learned that not to be the case, that the promised kingdom would come at Jesus' second appearance. The apostles from that day forward never doubted that Jesus would return and at that time the promised everlasting kingdom would be established. I see nothing in the NT that would suggest otherwise.

That doesn't mean that God made them not believe, it means that them choosing not to recognize Jesus God honored their choice and stopped perusing them through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's part of the reason, but the heart of their failure to recognize the Messiah is succinctly stated in Romans.

Rom 11:8,

(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.​

​

Just before Jesus ascended, he promised to return. The apostles replied by asking him if he would restore that kingdom at that time. They may have been among those who expected Jesus to establish his kingdom during his first appearance, but clearly they learned that not to be the case, that the promised kingdom would come at Jesus' second appearance. The apostles from that day forward never doubted that Jesus would return and at that time the promised everlasting kingdom would be established. I see nothing in the NT that would suggest otherwise.

Are you forgetting that Jesus taught that His kingdom is spiritual and said that His kingdom does not come with observation?

Luke 17:20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

And that it is not of this world?

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

And that Paul said this about it:

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,

And that the kingdom came with power on the day of Pentecost when 3,000 Jews were saved (Acts 2:41)?

And that scripture says we become part of His kingdom when we are saved?

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are enormous amount of scholars who hold to what is fully known as the literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding the Scriptures.

They use the same method of accepting the words of Scripture as we all do in reading all other written materials.

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society

this does not mean that we do not recognize allegory in Scripture writings and the use of symbolic, parobolic and apocalyptic language. But we also recognize that it is SCripture itself that defines its own non literal writing.

What people misunderstand is that many passages of the OT and some in the NT can hace several applications (personal application) but that there is still only one interpretation, which shortly described is god meant what He said and said what He meant

I believe it is foolish to interpret scripture no differently than "all other written materials" as if the Bible is just another book like all other books. We must have spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit in order to discern whether any given text is literal, figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic or Apocalyptic.

1 Corinthian 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

The "literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding the Scriptures" is the way "the natural man" tries to understand the scriptures, but they can't be understood that way because it is "spiritually discerned". Scripture is not the words "which man's wisdom teacheth", but rather "which the Holy Ghost teacheth". We should never interpret any given text in scripture with the assumption that it's literal, figurative, poetic or any certain type of text. We need to look at context, we need to keep the rest of scripture in mind so that we don't interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture and we need insight from the Holy Spirit to help us make that determination.

 

[David in NJ]

That's part of the reason, but the heart of their failure to recognize the Messiah is succinctly stated in Romans.

Rom 11:8,

(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.​

​

Just before Jesus ascended, he promised to return. The apostles replied by asking him if he would restore that kingdom at that time. They may have been among those who expected Jesus to establish his kingdom during his first appearance, but clearly they learned that not to be the case, that the promised kingdom would come at Jesus' second appearance. The apostles from that day forward never doubted that Jesus would return and at that time the promised everlasting kingdom would be established. I see nothing in the NT that would suggest otherwise.

One IMPORTANT Fact you left out.

JESUS first established that His Kingdom BEGINS in our heart/mind soul and strength = Deuteronomy 6:5

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

 

[Rich R]

One IMPORTANT Fact you left out.

JESUS first established that His Kingdom BEGINS in our heart/mind soul and strength = Deuteronomy 6:5

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

An important fact indeed! Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Rich R]

I believe it is foolish to interpret scripture no differently than "all other written materials" as if the Bible is just another book like all other books. We must have spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit in order to discern whether any given text is literal, figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic or Apocalyptic.

1 Corinthian 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

The "literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding the Scriptures" is the way "the natural man" tries to understand the scriptures, but they can't be understood that way because it is "spiritually discerned". Scripture is not the words "which man's wisdom teacheth", but rather "which the Holy Ghost teacheth". We should never interpret any given text in scripture with the assumption that it's literal, figurative, poetic or any certain type of text. We need to look at context, we need to keep the rest of scripture in mind so that we don't interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture and we need insight from the Holy Spirit to help us make that determination.

Premils do indeed employ the "literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding the Scriptures." However that in no way means that they deny the necessity of understanding which parts of the scripture are literal, figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic or Apocalyptic. I don't know any Christian of any bent that believes they were literally crucified with Christ as Romans and Galatians say. Clearly there is a figure of speech involved.

There are no less than 212 different types of figures of speech. If I told you the ground is dry, you'd know exactly what I meant. You'd still know what I meant if I told you the ground is "thirsty." The former is true to fact, i.e. literal, whereas the latter is a figure of speech, in this case "personification." I assigned a human characteristic, thirst, to an inanimate object, ground. The difference is that the latter tends to catch your attention in a way that the former did not. In other words, it emphasized just how dry the ground really is.

The Bible is full of figures of speech. But, again, they are all precise. We can't just willy-nilly make something literal into a figure or visa versa. We must use commonly accepted rules of grammar. God is very aware of those rules and uses them in order to communicate His will to us. He's actually the most precise word smith that ever existed. Isn't there something in the scriptures about all His words being purified 7 times? That's pretty darn precise! We ought to be as precise as humanly possible in order to rightly divide God's word.

The thing about figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic language is that it is just as precise as literal language. There are grammatical rules that can be learned so as to avoid mixing up the different genres of writing.

God used words to communicate His will to us. He really wanted us to know His will. I think He went to great pains to do so. He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Now He knows how we humans think and how we use words. Given that, why in the world would He radically change the meaning of words and grammar so as to make it such that only a select few could understand Him? That smacks of Gnosticism.

I'd suggest digging a little deeper into what God meant in 1 Cor 2:9-15. There are other verses that need to be considered. It's never a good idea to build a doctrine on just one or a few verses.

 

[Keraz]

Are you forgetting that Jesus taught that His kingdom is spiritual and said that His kingdom does not come with observation?

Luke 17:20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

And that it is not of this world?

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

And that Paul said this about it:

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,

And that the kingdom came with power on the day of Pentecost when 3,000 Jews were saved (Acts 2:41)?

And that scripture says we become part of His kingdom when we are saved?

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

We all know that for this age; the Kingdom is a Spiritual Kingdom. It is within His faithful people.
It is not of this world because the King has not yet taken up His power and authority.

But this Christian age of 2000 years, is nearly over and it ends with the glorious Return of King Jesus, to physically reign for the final thousand years of God Plan for mankind.
This is the Biblical truth and those who hold to the AMill belief are wrong.

 

[Rich R]

Are you forgetting that Jesus taught that His kingdom is spiritual and said that His kingdom does not come with observation?

No.

Luke 17:20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

And that it is not of this world?

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

And that Paul said this about it:

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,

And that the kingdom came with power on the day of Pentecost when 3,000 Jews were saved (Acts 2:41)?

And that scripture says we become part of His kingdom when we are saved?

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

All of that is obviously true, but it not the whole story.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Premils do indeed employ the "literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding the Scriptures." However that in no way means that they deny the necessity of understanding which parts of the scripture are literal, figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic or Apocalyptic. I don't know any Christian of any bent that believes they were literally crucified with Christ as Romans and Galatians say. Clearly there is a figure of speech involved.

That method of interpretation leads one to assume that everything is literal unless the text slaps you in the face and says otherwise. We should not assume anything one way or another about any given verse or passage.

There are no less than 212 different types of figures of speech. If I told you the ground is dry, you'd know exactly what I meant. You'd still know what I meant if I told you the ground is "thirsty." The former is true to fact, i.e. literal, whereas the latter is a figure of speech, in this case "personification." I assigned a human characteristic, thirst, to an inanimate object, ground. The difference is that the latter tends to catch your attention in a way that the former did not. In other words, it emphasized just how dry the ground really is.

And you prove what I had just said here by acting as if the type of text being used is always obvious in scripture which is clearly not the case! If it was then we would not have as many disagreements among us.

The Bible is full of figures of speech. But, again, they are all precise.

LOL. What does that mean? If you mean it's always clear as to what type of speech is being used, you are naive. No, it is not always clear and the fact that we see so many different interpretations is proof of that.

We can't just willy-nilly make something literal into a figure or visa versa.

Who is doing that? I'm not. So, who exactly are you talking about here?

We must use commonly accepted rules of grammar.

What does this mean? Do these rules help us discern what a harlot woman sitting on many waters while riding a beast with seven heads and ten horns represents?

God is very aware of those rules and uses them in order to communicate His will to us.

Where are you coming up with this? I backed up my view of this with scripture (1 Cor 2:9-16). You are not backing up your view with scripture at all. You are telling me about man-made rules of which I see no evidence that they came from God.

He's actually the most precise word smith that ever existed. Isn't there something in the scriptures about all His words being purified 7 times? That's pretty darn precise! We ought to be as precise as humanly possible in order to rightly divide God's word.

The thing about figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic language is that it is just as precise as literal language. There are grammatical rules that can be learned so as to avoid mixing up the different genres of writing.

What does this even mean? This just comes across to me as just a word salad. Please clarify what you are saying.

God used words to communicate His will to us. He really wanted us to know His will. I think He went to great pains to do so. He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Now He knows how we humans think and how we use words. Given that, why in the world would He radically change the meaning of words and grammar so as to make it such that only a select few could understand Him? That smacks of Gnosticism.

When it comes to the gospel and people knowing what God expects of people to be saved, scripture is quite clear. But, what I'm talking about is what Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 which is "the deeper things of God". Things in scripture which go beyond the basics. Things like what we talk about on this forum that unbelievers and new Christians have no clue about.

Clearly, there is a lot of symbolism in certain books of the Bible like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation. Is it Gnosticism to recognize that? No, of course not. That's ridiculous. Clearly, God purposely inspired those books in such a way that they can only be discerned by believers. Not that those books don't contain anything literal. I'm not saying that. Take Revelation 2 and 3, for instance. That has some clear messages from Jesus that everyone should read and understand and take to heart. But, obviously, there are other parts of the book that are not so clear because of the symbolism being used. The book was purposely "signified" (Rev 1:1). It is primarily a book intended for the church and was purposely made so that only believers could understand most of it, similar to how it was with Jesus's parables.

I'd suggest digging a little deeper into what God meant in 1 Cor 2:9-15. There are other verses that need to be considered. It's never a good idea to build a doctrine on just one or a few verses.

Why say this without giving your own understanding of it? That makes no sense. Why should I take you seriously about this when I don't even know how you interpret it? I think YOU need to dig deeper into that passage so that you can learn the correct approach to interpreting scripture which doesn't involve making any assumptions about any of it as your current method of interpretation does.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We all know that for this age; the Kingdom is a Spiritual Kingdom. It is within His faithful people.

I think some don't understand that. Some only talk about the kingdom in a future sense. They are carnal and have difficulty understanding spiritual things.

It is not of this world because the King has not yet taken up His power and authority.

Nonsense! First, you acknowledge that it's a Spiritual Kingdom and then you say this. No, it's not of this world because this world and its ways are evil and the kingdom of God, in contrast is "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17).

But this Christian age of 2000 years, is nearly over and it ends with the glorious Return of King Jesus, to physically reign for the final thousand years of God Plan for mankind.
This is the Biblical truth and those who hold to the AMill belief are wrong.

Yet, you are completely incapable of proving this with scripture, as you've shown repeatedly. So, these are empty words from you.