Which Millennium is better? Amil's or Premil's proposed millennium?

[WPM]

How do you have an Amil millennium? Amil means no millennium.

Not true. It might help if you asked Amils. No literal earthly territorial millennium.

 

[Davidpt]

Here’s something that could be considered …

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

If the Premill millennium is full of just, righteous people then the joy in heaven will be greatly diminished during a Premill millennium, while the joy in heaven is much greater in an Amill millennium.

Over the past 2000 years there have been places and people that the gospel never reached but reaches eventually. What's in question is, the time periods involving the gospel not having reached any of these places and people yet. How would they even know to repent if the gospel hadn't even reached them yet? How would they even know about Christ if Christ was never preached to them during their lifetime? What happens to them when they died? They just go to hell because they never accepted Christ, someone they never even heard of, someone they didn't even know exists? And the sad thing is, I don't even know how to fit these into a future millennium since they couldn't possibly be a part of the first resurrection unless they were saved.

This topic of Amil vs Premil is complex, regardless that some might deny it. This Amil vs Premil is not simple like 2 Thessalonians 2:3, for instance, and the falling away recorded is. That obviously involves NOSAS, thus plain and simple to interpret. Nothing to misinterpret unless one is intentionally being a false teacher. Even if Amils are wrong about the millennium, or if Premils are wrong about it, it's not the same as intentionally being a false teacher since this debate is complex not simple. There are numerous things to factor in before deciding if Amil or Premil is the correct position. There is zero to factor in, in regards to the falling away recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 before deciding how to interpret it. It simply means what it says. It means that some fall away from salvation since there is nothing else they could possibly be falling away from except that, per that context. Thus NOSAS.

 

[Davidpt]

Apostasy does not relate to believers but religious people rejecting known truth. The elect will not be deceived. Jesus said it.

Here's the problem as I see it. I do not deny that OSAS is Biblical. You apparently deny that NOSAS is also Biblical. Plus, you are somewhat of a Calvinist, right? If yes, we are never going to see eye to eye about some of these things, since a Calvinist is something that I'm not nor want any part of that theology.

 

[grafted branch]

This topic of Amil vs Premil is complex, regardless that some might deny it. This Amil vs Premil is not simple like 2 Thessalonians 2:3, for instance, and the falling away recorded is. That obviously involves NOSAS, thus plain and simple to interpret.

I’m not going to argue for the Amill position, but I do think it is more accurate than the Premill position.

As for 2 Thessalonians 2:3, my take on it, having a OSAS view, is that it’s talking specifically about those who both believed and were zealous for the law (Acts 21:20). The transition period from the old covenant to the new covenant happened from the cross to 70AD. After the cross the old covenant was no longer valid but it seemed good the the Holy Spirit to allow different burdens between Jew and Gentiles during this time (Acts 15:28-29).

Those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and held onto the Law after initially accepting Him as the Messiah, “fell away”.

 

[WPM]

Here's the problem as I see it. I do not deny that OSAS is Biblical. You apparently deny that NOSAS is also Biblical. Plus, you are somewhat of a Calvinist, right? If yes, we are never going to see eye to eye about some of these things, since a Calvinist is something that I'm not nor want any part of that theology.

I could not care whether you believe OSAS or not. You rejecting a truth means nothing. It in no way refutes Amil.

 

[WPM]

Over the past 2000 years there have been places and people that the gospel never reached but reaches eventually. What's in question is, the time periods involving the gospel not having reached any of these places and people yet. How would they even know to repent if the gospel hadn't even reached them yet? How would they even know about Christ if Christ was never preached to them during their lifetime? What happens to them when they died? They just go to hell because they never accepted Christ, someone they never even heard of, someone they didn't even know exists? And the sad thing is, I don't even know how to fit these into a future millennium since they couldn't possibly be a part of the first resurrection unless they were saved.

This topic of Amil vs Premil is complex, regardless that some might deny it. This Amil vs Premil is not simple like 2 Thessalonians 2:3, for instance, and the falling away recorded is. That obviously involves NOSAS, thus plain and simple to interpret. Nothing to misinterpret unless one is intentionally being a false teacher. Even if Amils are wrong about the millennium, or if Premils are wrong about it, it's not the same as intentionally being a false teacher since this debate is complex not simple. There are numerous things to factor in before deciding if Amil or Premil is the correct position. There is zero to factor in, in regards to the falling away recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 before deciding how to interpret it. It simply means what it says. It means that some fall away from salvation since there is nothing else they could possibly be falling away from except that, per that context. Thus NOSAS.

Apostasy does not relate to believers but religious people rejecting known truth. The elect will not be deceived. Jesus said it in Matt 24:24: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

 

[ewq1938]

Here’s something that could be considered …

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

If the Premill millennium is full of just, righteous people then the joy in heaven will be greatly diminished during a Premill millennium, while the joy in heaven is much greater in an Amill millennium.

"If the Premill millennium is full of just, righteous people". There is no version of the Millennium where that is true.

 

[Earburner]

The OP has to do with which proposed Millennium seems to be the better one, regardless which proposed Millennium is actually the correct one? For example. Is a Millennium where righteousness is not dwelling throughout the earth, thus crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked lawyers, is better than a Millennium where righteousness is dwelling throughout the earth? Is a Millennium, where satan as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour, is better than a Millennium where he is not doing any of these things? Is a Millennium where billions and billions of people are still being deceived throughout, is better than a Millennium where no one is being deceived throughout?

The debate is over, when one understands that for all who shall (supposedly) live in their mortality, after Jesus returns in His Glorious Immortality, as King of kings, they do NOT have a "sin bearer".

Heb. 9[28] So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

In KJV-2 Thes. 1:7-10, please notice the word "WHEN" that is written two times within those verses, then ask yourself: "when is when"??
Hopefully, as the Holy Spirit guides you, and not "the wisdom of men" through church-ianity, you will understand that in THAT DAY, it will be a simultaneous event.
See also Luke 17:28-30 and all of 2 Peter 3.

 

[Truth7t7]

The OP has to do with which proposed Millennium seems to be the better one, regardless which proposed Millennium is actually the correct one? For example. Is a Millennium where righteousness is not dwelling throughout the earth, thus crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked lawyers, is better than a Millennium where righteousness is dwelling throughout the earth? Is a Millennium, where satan as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour, is better than a Millennium where he is not doing any of these things? Is a Millennium where billions and billions of people are still being deceived throughout, is better than a Millennium where no one is being deceived throughout?

Dave there isn't a Millennial Kingdom on this earth found in scripture as you've been shown several times, and you know this

 

[grafted branch]

"If the Premill millennium is full of just, righteous people". There is no version of the Millennium where that is true.

Here are some quotes from the OP regarding the Premil millennium …

“Not one single person on the entire planet is still being deceived during their proposed Millennium.”

“Christ and His bodily immortal saints are ruling and governing the entire planet.”

“Righteousness is dwelling throughout the earth during their proposed Millennium.”

“There are no more crooked courts, no more crooked judges, no more crooked lawyers, so on and so on, throughout their proposed Millennium”



Since you don’t think anyone has a version of the millennium that is full of just and righteous people, then your argument is really against the OP.

Do you have a millennium that is similar to the Amil millennium where unbelievers are everywhere among us, sometimes even ruling entire cities, states, and countries?

 

[Davidpt]

Here are some quotes from the OP regarding the Premil millennium …

“Not one single person on the entire planet is still being deceived during their proposed Millennium.”

“Christ and His bodily immortal saints are ruling and governing the entire planet.”

“Righteousness is dwelling throughout the earth during their proposed Millennium.”

“There are no more crooked courts, no more crooked judges, no more crooked lawyers, so on and so on, throughout their proposed Millennium”



Since you don’t think anyone has a version of the millennium that is full of just and righteous people, then your argument is really against the OP.

You misunderstood the OP if you take the OP to be meaning that. How can mortals that end up rebelling after the millennium be among the just and righteous during the millennium? They can't. They dwell among the just and righteous during the millennium, and that the just and righteous are keeping them in check since they have to abide by their rules. Thus righteousness dwelling throughout since their rules involve righteousness not unrighteousness.

That hardly makes them just and righteous as well, where I take the just and righteous to mean eternally saved, which is something they are not if they rebel after the millennium then are devoured by fire from God out of heaven.

During the millennium they are temporarily saved, not to be conflated with salvation. Not meaning saved in that manner. Meaning they were spared what happened to those that came against Jerusalem per Zechariah 14, for instance. IOW, when Zechariah 14:12 happens some are spared that fate. The ones spared are meaning the ones in verses 16-19. Clearly, verse 12 does not happen to them as well if they are to go up from year to year.

Clearly, none of these can be among the saved that put on immortality during the last trump, the fact they can be punished for failing to comply with what is commanded of them. IOW, no one that has put on bodily immortality is going to then be threatened with being punished if they don't comply with what is commanded of them. That only applies to those per verses 16-19 in Zechariah 14.

There is no way around it, Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning after the 2nd coming, not prior to the 2nd coming. It is meaning after verse 12 is fulfilled. Clearly, verse 12 has not been fulfilled yet. There is zero per the past 2000 years that can explain Zechariah 14:12.

Then after the millennium they are tested to see whether they want to continue to be ruled over or not. Apparently, they don't desire to continue being ruled over in this manner, so satan then deceives them to rebel. And we already know how that turns out.

Zechariah 14 is clearly relevant. There is no way that I can see that one can logically take everything recorded in Zechariah 14 to be involving this age and be meaning before the 2nd coming. Some of it can't fit this age. Amils, among some others, ignore that.

For example.

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

If this hasn't even come to pass yet, and that Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning post verse 12, how can one logically insist none of Zechariah 14 is meaning after this age?

Zechariah 14:16 ¶And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem(IOW, these were obviously spared the fate pertaining to verse 12) shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Regardless what it might look like to go up from year to year, one thing that is crystal clear, one can't do that in a single 24 hour day or less, go up from year to year. Therefore, it requires that there must be a period of time reserved for this post the 2nd coming in order to fulfill this.

 

[grafted branch]

How can mortals that end up rebelling after the millennium be among the just and righteous during the millennium? They can't.

I’m not sure if you would agree or disagree, but look at 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

I’m sure you don’t think 1 John 2:29 is talking about the millennium but that same sort of thing could be taking place in your future millennium. Meaning this, it’s not possible (manifest) to distinguish between the two groups until they no longer continued with us.

Meaning they were spared what happened to those that came against Jerusalem per Zechariah 14, for instance. IOW, when Zechariah 14:12 happens some are spared that fate. The ones spared are meaning the ones in verses 16-19. Clearly, verse 12 does not happen to them as well if they are to go up from year to year.

Zechariah 14 appears to be talking about the period of time where the old Jerusalem and New Jerusalem are both present and it speaks about their relationship or really their division and separation.

I would say those in Zechariah 14:12 who fought against Jerusalem are those who fought against New Jerusalem.

 

[Davidpt]

Dave there isn't a Millennial Kingdom on this earth found in scripture as you've been shown several times, and you know this

Being shown something is not always necessarily the same thing as proving something.

 

[Davidpt]

I could not care whether you believe OSAS or not. You rejecting a truth means nothing. It in no way refutes Amil.

You must have reading comprehension or something. Nowhere did I say I reject OSAS. I'm not the one rejecting anything, you are. You are rejecting that NOSAS is also Biblical.

 

[Davidpt]

Those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and held onto the Law after initially accepting Him as the Messiah, “fell away”.

I'm not entirely understanding what you are meaning here. Can you provide some Scriptures that illustrate what you are meaning here? I need to get on the same page with you before I can decide whether you are right or wrong.

 

[Davidpt]

I’m not sure if you would agree or disagree, but look at 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

I’m sure you don’t think 1 John 2:29 is talking about the millennium but that same sort of thing could be taking place in your future millennium. Meaning this, it’s not possible (manifest) to distinguish between the two groups until they no longer continued with us.

Though, I think I get your point, but if one factors in Zechariah 14, everyone would already know who these mortals remaining are. They are the ones left of the nations which came against Jerusalem, but instead of the plague getting them too, they are spared to live another day. I tend to take it to maybe mean, though they were of the nations that come against Jerusalem, they didn't actually participate in it. Yet, they weren't eternally saved either, otherwise they would be immortal at the last trump. Except no one immortal at the last trump is going to be threatened with punishments if they fail to comply(Zechariah 14:17-19).

I would say those in Zechariah 14:12 who fought against Jerusalem are those who fought against New Jerusalem.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said here since I'm assuming you are are meaning this spiritually. But let's think about something here, the fact God can do multiple things at the same time. IOW, though, it could be involving that, spiritually speaking, it can also be involving it, literally speaking, at the same time.

Look how much of the world is against the Jews occupying that region in the middle east. They might not be believers yet, but this age isn't over yet. And Ezekiel 38-39, for instance, says that the house of Israel, even when God is hiding His face from them, they are still His people, regardless. And that Zechariah 14 says that the Lord shall go forth and fight against those nations coming against Jerusalem.

As to verse 12 in Zechariah 14. You think that has already been fulfilled, or you think it hasn't? Either way, what is it looking like to you when it is fulfilled? IOW, do you take it in the literal sense or some other sense, keeping in mind that God is the one bringing about this plague. Meaning it won't be man made, such as man made nuclear weapons or something.

 

[grafted branch]

I'm not entirely understanding what you are meaning here. Can you provide some Scriptures that illustrate what you are meaning here? I need to get on the same page with you before I can decide whether you are right or wrong.

In Acts 15:28-29 a different burden was placed on the Gentiles than was placed on the Jews. Today nobody is asked if they are Jew or Gentile when they join a church.

During the first century a temporary situation occurred where a person could both hold to the old covenant Law and also believe that Jesus was the Messiah. There were some of these people that held both to the Law and believed in Jesus, that at some point kept the Law and rejected Jesus as the Messiah (1John 2:19, Hebrews 6:4-6, John 15:6).

 

[TribulationSigns]

The OP has to do with which proposed Millennium seems to be the better one, regardless which proposed Millennium is actually the correct one? For example. Is a Millennium where righteousness is not dwelling throughout the earth, thus crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked lawyers, is better than a Millennium where righteousness is dwelling throughout the earth? Is a Millennium, where satan as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour, is better than a Millennium where he is not doing any of these things? Is a Millennium where billions and billions of people are still being deceived throughout, is better than a Millennium where no one is being deceived throughout?

Most people misunderstand the purpose of the millennial kingdom.
Because though the power of that spirit Satan was bound so that the nations would not be deceived and Christ could build His church out of them, SATAN was STILL ALLOWED in the world. You need to remember that he was only bound from thwarting the church from being gleaned from the nations during this millennial reign, or until the church finished its testimony (Revelation 11:7). An analogy would be that the spirit Satan was bound much like a dog might be bound by a great chain. The dog can roam freely only for as far as the chain is long, still he is restrained by that same chain from going any further than it allows. That is how Revelation 20 says Satan as bound with a spiritual chain for the sake of the nations/gentiles. But he is still allowed to roam and deceive. In other words, he was bound for the sake of the church, not for the sake of the world. So once the church is completed, the testimony of God's witnesses is finished and the dog will be set loose from his chain and will be all over men who HAVE NOT YET SEALED BY GOD, Revelation 9:4. He will NOT hurt those who have been sealed by God (Elect). That is why there were always crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked lawyers, crooked teachers, crooked parents or any crooked unsaved people in the world while the millennial kingdom was building. It was the tribulation for the Elect during the millennial kingdom but AFTER the church has built and Satan losoened, it will be GREAT Tribulation. it is the SAME tribulation, onlyu greater because Satan will be revealed in more and more false prophets and christs than ever! He will thus again deceive and gather the gentiles/nations to assault the camp of the saints. This as God's judgment for its rampant unfaithfulness and apostasy. When the New Testament church is completed, all Israel will have been saved and Satan will be loosed to judge the unfaithful congregations. All of God's Israel will have been sealed or secured of God so that those who were redeemed cannot be harmed by him.

Revelation 20:7-9

• "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
• And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
• And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Remember in the first section of this chapter of Revelation 20 God specifically told us WHY Satan was bound. It was for "the sake of the nations/gentiles," that they would not be deceived. But after all who are to be sealed with the name of God in their foreheads, after that task is complete, we read that Satan is again allowed to deceive the nations once again and gather them together against the very camp of the saints---where Satan will ultimately be defeated and judged.

Selah!

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the world will be free from Satan, sin, and experience world peace for 1,000 literal years. It states that Satan is simply being restrained, making it easier for those whom God has chosen to be sealed to receive the Gospel and be saved, while the rest of the world remains under Satan's rule.

 

[Davidpt]

An analogy would be that the spirit Satan was bound much like a dog might be bound by a great chain. The dog can roam freely only for as far as the chain is long, still he is restrained by that same chain from going any further than it allows.

LOL. What a lame analogy. But you didn't come up with it though, therefore, you shouldn't take it personally. IOW, this is not the first time I have heard an Amil use that same exact analogy. Must be one long chain satan is bound with if he can devour someone in the USA and also devour someone in China, for instance.

If a dog was tied to a chain in it's yard in Dallas, Tx, it certainly wouldn't be able to bite anyone in China, or even anyone outside the yard it is tied in.

That dog on a chain analogy doesn't cut it because satan can roam the entire planet, a dog tied to a chain in it's yard can't roam the entire planet but can only roam the yard it is tied up in.

Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

[WPM]

You must have reading comprehension or something. Nowhere did I say I reject OSAS. I'm not the one rejecting anything, you are. You are rejecting that NOSAS is also Biblical.

Tell the truth.