Thread: Premil's departure from creeds and confessions and one logical conclusion

Since the amil position seems to be the overwhelming position in the Reformed world, a good question for amils might be:

Are you amil because:

1. You thoroughly investigated that position and are convinced that it's biblical, or,

2. When thinking about eschatology, you noticed that most Reformed folks are amil, so you figured you'd be amil too, so as not to rock the boat and because, what the heck, it's the majority position, and I don't wanna look weird, so...

I'm being slightly mischevious here...

As a young christian still learning, a lot of this is still a bit over my head. I will say this though, I am involved in evangelism and find many who know about premill (I am premill) but don't know the gospel. I personally know pastors in my town that talk of the end times but don't truly know what repentance is. We must keep that in mind. According to Barna 67% of christians think being good will get them to heaven. That same 67% could probably tell you how many LaHaye books there were.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Since the amil position seems to be the overwhelming position in the Reformed world, a good question for amils might be:

Are you amil because:

1. You thoroughly investigated that position and are convinced that it's biblical, or,

2. When thinking about eschatology, you noticed that most Reformed folks are amil, so you figured you'd be amil too, so as not to rock the boat and because, what the heck, it's the majority position, and I don't wanna look weird, so...

I'm being slightly mischevious here...

1. I hold my eschatological view based solely on the conviction of the Bible.
2. Sometimes the reformers do influence me, but I am not basing my conviction on them but on Bible, they are helping me to understand and think thoroughly about the Bible.

BTW, I am postmil, not amil.

I investigated this issue for certain depth, I still cannot figure out how classical premil reconcile the following:
1. resurrection and the judgment which comes directly after the coming of the Lord as a clear Biblical teaching instead of a gap for 1000 years;
2. Death being totally swollowed up by victory at His second coming instead of still physical death in the 1000 years;
3. The nature of the 1000 years' Kingdom, and its difference between the eternal heaven which has no end;
4. The final conflict between the earthly rebellion and Christ in His glory as well as the saints with resurrected bodies, the possibility of the flesh to rebel against the saint and Christ in glory;
5. What prophecies are fulfilled regarding the 1000 years' kingdom;
6. On what hermenutics shall 1000 years be treated literally as well as the consistency of this treatment.

Regards,
Xu

Originally Posted by bookslover

I'm being slightly mischevious here...

When are you never?

I still can't see the point of this thread. At first glance I thought it was yet another former dispy trying to play the hard role and show how Reformed he is now. (If he's trying to say premil is just as heretical as full preterism then I say this is likely the case.) Then I wondered if he might be setting up for a defense of full preterism. But he denies this. To my knowledge no one denounces full preterism as a heresy simply due to it contradicting the creeds.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I still can't see the point of this thread. At first glance I thought it was yet another former dispy trying to play the hard role and show how Reformed he is now. (If he's trying to say premil is just as heretical as full preterism then I say this is likely the case.) Then I wondered if he might be setting up for a defense of full preterism. But he denies this. To my knowledge no one denounces full preterism as a heresy simply due to it contradicting the creeds.

Several weeks ago, someone at church mentioned to everyone that premil departed from the WCF implicitly, and it reminded me of premil's departure to the ecumenical creeds and the Belgic Confession of Faith as well. This issue was raised, but nobody has any clue on this.

Anyway, then I thinked about preterism and people who hold preterism. I raised this post. Basically, that is it.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Since the amil position seems to be the overwhelming position in the Reformed world, a good question for amils might be:

Are you amil because:

1. You thoroughly investigated that position and are convinced that it's biblical, or,

2. When thinking about eschatology, you noticed that most Reformed folks are amil, so you figured you'd be amil too, so as not to rock the boat and because, what the heck, it's the majority position, and I don't wanna look weird, so...

I'm being slightly mischevious here...

Richard, you little devil you!

I began attending a Baptist church at age 2. My first pastor was historic premill, followed by one who was amill. During high school, my youth group was VERY influenced by dispensational teaching (we even went to hear R.B. Thieme, Hal Lindsay, and a (then) almost young guy named Tim LaHaye!).

Reading George Ladd during high school convinced me of the historic premill view. This was only strengthened by having Bob Gundry (the other Mr. Posttrib) for 32 units in college. Seminary (under Ladd) set me on a lifelong course as an historic premill.

After my group pullled out of the ABC, it threw me into an existential crisis wondering how many of my views were really firmly founded and how many were merely accepted because that is what most of my evangelical tribe believed. In the process of re-examining eschatology, Kim Riddlebarger's MP3 series (actually a couple of them) and his books pretty much dismantled my historic premill views.

Actually, the hermeneutical stumbling block is at the point of the dispi divide. Once you abandon the dispensational hermeneutic, moving between the eschatological positions becomes much more fluid. When I was in school, they told us that NOBODY believed in the postmill view after WWI. Obviously, judging by its renewed popularity among some Reformed, that has changed significantly in the last 35 years!

So, at this point, I've been Riddlebargered into the amill view.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

So, at this point, I've been Riddlebargered into the amill view.

Beats being Barthed I guess.

Originally Posted by YXU

Dr. Cairns's definition puts premil view as a heresy which are held by many including himself. Which I believe does not go that far as to become a heresy.

If by Dr. Cairn's definition, premillenialism (to which I am an adherent) is a heresy, why then does he endorse the ministry of Michael Barrett (a self-professed historic premillenialist), who teaches at the seminary affliated to Dr. Cairn's denomination and even spoke at the Free Presbyterian International Congress, the world conference of the same denomination. Surely Dr. Alan Cairns know heresy when he sees it?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

WCF 8:4, "and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world." This is explicitly anti-chiliast. Larger Catechism answer 88 ties the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the final judgement as one continuous series of events. This leads me to regard Gordon Clark's analysis as faulty.

This really doesn't affect premillennialism a bit. Consecutive events do not dictate a time frame, only an order. This is part of what's wrong with the OP. It assumes that the time frame is set according to man's understanding. However, if such was the case, then Jesus could not have quoted half of the prophesy of Isaiah 61:1-3 (Luke 4:18-19). As my amil brethren are apt to note, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day with the Lord. We cannot dicate time frames. We can only submit to them. And where consecutive order is dictated we must submit to it, without imposing our preconceived notions of the time element involved. In both the WCF and the creeds in the OP there are no mentions of the time involved. Many things can take place between sequential events, regardless of whether we understand how this will take place or not.

Originally Posted by YXU

I investigated this issue for certain depth, I still cannot figure out how classical premil reconcile the following:
1. resurrection and the judgment which comes directly after the coming of the Lord as a clear Biblical teaching instead of a gap for 1000 years;
2. Death being totally swollowed up by victory at His second coming instead of still physical death in the 1000 years;
3. The nature of the 1000 years' Kingdom, and its difference between the eternal heaven which has no end;
4. The final conflict between the earthly rebellion and Christ in His glory as well as the saints with resurrected bodies, the possibility of the flesh to rebel against the saint and Christ in glory;
5. What prophecies are fulfilled regarding the 1000 years' kingdom;
6. On what hermenutics shall 1000 years be treated literally as well as the consistency of this treatment.

1 - There are many reasons to hold to a literal 1000 year kingdom. They've been hashed out on this board many times and can be found with a simple search. Again, as to time frame, that's God's domain, so it's back to our exegesis of the millennial passages.
2 - I don't understand the relevance. Death is swallowed up by victory in Christ. It's not a time element. Although death will apparently be banished in the eternal state.
3 - Again, this has been hashed out to a great degree. The millennial reign is decidedly different than the eternal state. In the end, man's depravity is that much more clearly exposed as he rebels, even when the government and social order of the world are theocratic. That's a bit simplistic, and limited. But there are plenty of resources to understand this more clearly.
4 - I don't understand the issue here...
5 - Look up "One thousand years" in your concordance or Bible search software. Then look up the cross references in your Bible. Also, use the NTSK for cross references. That should pretty much exhaust the references.
6 - Much of this has to do with the use of the article in the millennial passage. Again, this has been hashed out here.

Much of the problem with understanding premillennialism is the negative influence dispensationalism has had on it. The sensationalization of eschatology has made many think that premillennialism equals such nonsense. It does not. To go even further, such marketing of eschatology does not even represent all of dispensationalism. There is much to be learned in regard to both by reading more broadly than the likes of the authors on the NYT best selling list.

Full preterism is a heresy for many reasons, but mainly because it denies a future second coming, destroying the hope of the church of Jesus Christ. He promised He will return for her, and return He will. Premillennialism fosters hope, as does amil.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

This really doesn't affect premillennialism a bit. Consecutive events do not dictate a time frame, only an order. This is part of what's wrong with the OP. It assumes that the time frame is set according to man's understanding. However, if such was the case, then Jesus could not have quoted half of the prophesy of Isaiah 61:1-3 (Luke 4:18-19). As my amil brethren are apt to note, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day with the Lord. We cannot dicate time frames. We can only submit to them. And where consecutive order is dictated we must submit to it, without imposing our preconceived notions of the time element involved. In both the WCF and the creeds in the OP there are no mentions of the time involved. Many things can take place between sequential events, regardless of whether we understand how this will take place or not.

Reference to a time frame is a red herring as my statement was only concered with the order of events. According to the Catechism the coming of the Lord brings the resurrection and final judgement. To posit a second coming which is followed by interim events prior to the final judgement is to create a different series of events.

Actually, it's not a red herring. That's failing to address the issue correctly. And the portion of the WCF you quoted only mentions events. However, you did address my mistake well. I didn't take the time to revisit question 88 of the larger confession, which clearly states "immediately," and ties the second coming with the resurrection of the just and unjust.
With this in consideration, it is clear that there would have to be two resurrections in the premil scenario, which doesn't fit this stated order of things. I suppose one could hold to premil without a premil rapture, but I don't see the point. And this definitely wouldn't fit with the premil understanding of the Thessalonian treatment of the second coming. Hmmm, interesting.
Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by BaptisticFire2007

Originally Posted by YXU

Dr. Cairns's definition puts premil view as a heresy which are held by many including himself. Which I believe does not go that far as to become a heresy.

If by Dr. Cairn's definition, premillenialism (to which I am an adherent) is a heresy, why then does he endorse the ministry of Michael Barrett (a self-professed historic premillenialist), who teaches at the seminary affliated to Dr. Cairn's denomination and even spoke at the Free Presbyterian International Congress, the world conference of the same denomination. Surely Dr. Alan Cairns know heresy when he sees it?

Surely, Premillenialism is not a heresy, but it departs from the ecumenical creeds which are used to set up Christian orthodoxy in certain degree. Dr. Cairns's definition of heresy includes Christian orthodoxy, but what is orthodoxy or which orthodoxy, basically, orthodoxy is defined in the four ecumenical creeds. So, according to this definition, premillenialism is probable to become a heresy. Basically all the departures from the ecumenical creeds are definitely heresies, but premillenialism to me is an exception, as well as full preterism.

P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.

1 - There are many reasons to hold to a literal 1000 year kingdom. They've been hashed out on this board many times and can be found with a simple search. Again, as to time frame, that's God's domain, so it's back to our exegesis of the millennial passages.
2 - I don't understand the relevance. Death is swallowed up by victory in Christ. It's not a time element. Although death will apparently be banished in the eternal state.
3 - Again, this has been hashed out to a great degree. The millennial reign is decidedly different than the eternal state. In the end, man's depravity is that much more clearly exposed as he rebels, even when the government and social order of the world are theocratic. That's a bit simplistic, and limited. But there are plenty of resources to understand this more clearly.
4 - I don't understand the issue here...
5 - Look up "One thousand years" in your concordance or Bible search software. Then look up the cross references in your Bible. Also, use the NTSK for cross references. That should pretty much exhaust the references.
6 - Much of this has to do with the use of the article in the millennial passage. Again, this has been hashed out here.

Regarding No.2, there will be no death after Christ's coming, how can this be reconciled to the physical death of people in the 1000 years kingdom.
Regarding No. 3 our Christ in His glory is not approachable by flesh, His glory will destroy all which are of flesh. The wicked cannot live with him in the 1000 year kingdom with their carnal bodies, it is not possible.
Regarding No. 4 the battle between carnal bodies and Christ as well as His saints in glory is impossible.
Regarding No. 6 how is the inconsistency in applying such interpretation be reconciled?

Regards,

Xu

Originally Posted by YXU

P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.

You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Actually, it's not a red herring. That's failing to address the issue correctly. And the portion of the WCF you quoted only mentions events. However, you did address my mistake well. I didn't take the time to revisit question 88 of the larger confession, which clearly states "immediately," and ties the second coming with the resurrection of the just and unjust.
With this in consideration, it is clear that there would have to be two resurrections in the premil scenario, which doesn't fit this stated order of things. I suppose one could hold to premil without a premil rapture, but I don't see the point. And this definitely wouldn't fit with the premil understanding of the Thessalonian treatment of the second coming. Hmmm, interesting.
Thanks for the clarification.

According to premil, only the first resurrection happens immediately after His coming, and then the second ressurection and the final judgement will happen after the 1000 years.

The timing issue is a big problem! Because by this 1000 years, resurrected saints in glory and Christ in His glory will dwell with those carnal flesh and evil for 1000 years, and in the end, the carnal flesh will even raise a rebellion against our Christ in His glory.

When John was eating with Christ, he was in His bossom, when He saw our Christ in glory, he fell to the ground like a dead man!

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by YXU

P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.

You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.

This is the definition of Rabbi Duncan. The base of all heresies is basically antinomianism that is lawlessness.

YXU:

Here is an interesting link I just found: Bible.org: The Phantom Heresyid the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?


Did the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemn Chiliasm as heresy?

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by YXU

P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.

You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.

This is the definition of Rabbi Duncan. The base of all heresies is basically antinomianism that is lawlessness.

But that is like saying all heresy is godlessness. We are not talking about the "base" of heresy - and by the way, that is not what you said, you said "only one" - we are talking about what is a heresy.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.

This is the definition of Rabbi Duncan. The base of all heresies is basically antinomianism that is lawlessness.

But that is like saying all heresy is godlessness. We are not talking about the "base" of heresy - and by the way, that is not what you said, you said "only one" - we are talking about what is a heresy.

Pastor. Greco,

List heresies in detail is not easy, due to my limited knowledge a heresy damages the soul and leads to probable destruction it could be either problems with knowledge or with the Christian life, here is my personal belief, please critisize me is I am wrong:

1. Those who trust in their heart salvation is the work of Jesus Christ plus others (good works or his own choice) will go to hell. Many Armians are not consistent, but true and consistent Armians go to hell.
2. Antinomians (either the classical hyper-Calvinist antinomians or some schools of the modern day dispensationalists who deny the ten commandments and introduce their own law)
3. Those who deny the essential natures of God.

I have had difficulties for a long time for I personally think dispensationlism is herey (deny the nature of the convenant of God, Armianism, re-introduction to the sacrificial system which is condemned by the Bible, antinomianism and so forth), but I am sure there are a lot of disagreements among Christians as to whether dispensationlism is a heresy or not. But one thing I noticed is that, there are not many consistent dispensationalists just like the Armians, many are just influenced by such eschatology, may not be totally dispensational in their whole system of theology.

Regards,

Xu

Originally Posted by YXU

Surely, Premillenialism is not a heresy, but it departs from the ecumenical creeds which are used to set up Christian orthodoxy in certain degree.

Well, it would be better to say that the ecumenical creeds reflect the orthodoxy of the Bible rather than that they "set up" orthodoxy, as if the creeds control the Bible. Rather, it's the other way around - the creeds are subservient to the Scriptures.

And, again, the fact that the premil view is not reflected in the creeds is not a big deal. It just means that those who wrote those documents were not premil; or (as in the Wesminster Assembly) those who held to the premil view were not able to sway their fellow ministers in that direction when it came to writing the documents.

Thanks Pergamum! The Phantom Heresy articles was a nice read and a refresher in history that brings alot of this discussion into perspective.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by YXU

Surely, Premillenialism is not a heresy, but it departs from the ecumenical creeds which are used to set up Christian orthodoxy in certain degree.

Well, it would be better to say that the ecumenical creeds reflect the orthodoxy of the Bible rather than that they "set up" orthodoxy, as if the creeds control the Bible. Rather, it's the other way around - the creeds are subservient to the Scriptures.

And, again, the fact that the premil view is not reflected in the creeds is not a big deal. It just means that those who wrote those documents were not premil; or (as in the Wesminster Assembly) those who held to the premil view were not able to sway their fellow ministers in that direction when it came to writing the documents.

Orthodoxy is not listed in the Bible as obvious and as in detail as it is listed in the creeds. Most of the heresies believe in the Bible, but their problems are revealed by the creeds.

A creed should help us to understand the Bible, but not to replace the Bible. So I think so they are highly helpful. If some thing departs from a faithful creed, it has a problem in it.

Premil departs from creeds and so it is an error. The creeds has strong support in this issue, II Peter 3:10 and Jude 14,15 are the most obvious verses as far as I know. Unless this verse be twisted, the premil' view cannot stand.

Originally Posted by YXU

Premil departs from creeds and so it is an error.

No. The mere fact that the premil view is not mentioned or supported by the creeds does not mean that the premil view is erroneous. It merely means that it is not mentioned or supported by the creeds. You have already admitted that the premil view is not a heresy, so I don't understand why you are having a problem with this.

To put it the other way around: just because a creed or confession supports the amil view (for instance) doesn't obligate me to accept that particular eschatological view.

The OPC (of which I am a member) has very wisely always accepted, as ministers and elders, men who hold to all three of the basic eschatological views (historic premil, postmil, and amil), no matter what any of the various secondary standards might say on the matter.

The historic (or classic) premil view is not heretical and is not in error merely because secondary standards don't support it.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by YXU

Premil departs from creeds and so it is an error.

No. The mere fact that the premil view is not mentioned or supported by the creeds does not mean that the premil view is erroneous. It merely means that it is not mentioned or supported by the creeds. You have already admitted that the premil view is not a heresy, so I don't understand why you are having a problem with this.

To put it the other way around: just because a creed or confession supports the amil view (for instance) doesn't obligate me to accept that particular eschatological view.

The OPC (of which I am a member) has very wisely always accepted, as ministers and elders, men who hold to all three of the basic eschatological views (historic premil, postmil, and amil), no matter what any of the various secondary standards might say on the matter.

The historic (or classic) premil view is not heretical and is not in error merely because secondary standards don't support it.

It is an error because of scripture say no to it. (II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15) Creeds are good help to us to understand the scripture and to protect the church as pillar of the truth, if all creeds say no to something, I will be very careful.

The fact is that for premil, postmil and amil, at least 2 of which are wrong, it is possible that all of which are wrong. But it can never be that all of which are right. If a Christian holds one view, then other two views are definitely wrong to him.

The another problem with premil view is that the prophecy in Daniel 9 is greatly twisted, our Christ who confirmed the everlasting covenant with many by His blood in the last week as Daniel prophesized. But in the premil view, people say that this is not our Christ but the AntiChrist.

If a man holds a doctrine not because of scripture but because of his own preference, and use their own preference to twist the meaning of scripture, a small error can become great problems. I see too many people, put on a label to themselves as premil and pre-trib to show up that they are orthodox and make the label of liberals to all the amils and postmils.

Regards,
Xu

Hello, and sorry for getting in here late--just rejoined the PB yesterday. Please see my intro about me if you wish.

I agree that the premil view is certainly unconfessional. We need to distinguish, though, when it comes to premil teaching that in Daniel 9 the covenant-maker is the Antichrist. There is *dispensational* premillennialism, and there is *historic* premillennialism.

*Dispensationalism* premillennialism teaches that the covenant-maker is Antichrist. But *historic* premillennialism does not. In fact, historic premil has much in common with amillennialism in many ways. See the works of George Eldon Ladd.

Although I'm not a fan of any form of premillennialism, I do admit that Ladd's scholarly works at least in my view gave historic premillennialism at least some credibility.

Originally Posted by JoshBrisby

*Dispensationalism* premillennialism teaches that the covenant-maker is Antichrist. But *historic* premillennialism does not. In fact, historic premil has much in common with amillennialism in many ways. See the works of George Eldon Ladd.

For clarity (or lack of), there are those who stand on every stepping stone between the two as well. Attempts to pin this down are futile. Somewhere in-between there is a single stepping stone where one steps from historic to dispy premil. But there is little agreement as to where that particular step is; mostly because it is a result, not a cause.

Originally Posted by YXU

The fact is that for premil, postmil and amil, at least 2 of which are wrong, it is possible that all of which are wrong. But it can never be that all of which are right. If a Christian holds one view, then other two views are definitely wrong to him.

This is why Christians should hold to their eschatological views with humility. We should hold them sincerely, but humbly. As I've said elsewhere on the PB, the mere fact that the church has, over the last 20 centuries, teased out three basic eschatological views from the same biblical material should be a hint that we don't know as much about the end times as we like to think we do - no matter which basic view we espouse!

Eschatology is one of those areas in theology where good, sincere, Christian people differ. And it will probably be that way until our Lord (historic premillennially!) returns.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by YXU

The fact is that for premil, postmil and amil, at least 2 of which are wrong, it is possible that all of which are wrong. But it can never be that all of which are right. If a Christian holds one view, then other two views are definitely wrong to him.

This is why Christians should hold to their eschatological views with humility. We should hold them sincerely, but humbly. As I've said elsewhere on the PB, the mere fact that the church has, over the last 20 centuries, teased out three basic eschatological views from the same biblical material should be a hint that we don't know as much about the end times as we like to think we do - no matter which basic view we espouse!

Eschatology is one of those areas in theology where good, sincere, Christian people differ. And it will probably be that way until our Lord (historic premillennially!) returns.

Mr. Zuelch

I appreciate the humble spirit in the statement. I think we should hold our doctrines firmly with a teachable spirit to ourselves as well as a humble spirit to others. But, a humble spirit never refrain us from arguing with each other over the truth.

The detail application of certain minor parts of scripture does involve great difficulties, but the general principel thereof is obvious and is easy to obtain. That is the ressurection and the last judgement is immediately after the coming of our Christ,

I do honestly want to know your interpretation of II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15 and the chronological order of Revelation Chapter 19 to Chapter 20.

Sincerely,

YX

The general principle of eschatology seemed obvious and easy to the schlars of Jesus' day as well - that's why they crucified their Messiah in the face of the obvious. Beware of eschatological elitism. Those who fail to consider other possibilities may fail to discern the face of the sky... (Matthew 16:1-4).

Originally Posted by Wannabee

The general principle of eschatology seemed obvious and easy to the schlars of Jesus' day as well - that's why they crucified their Messiah in the face of the obvious. Beware of eschatological elitism. Those who fail to consider other possibilities may fail to discern the face of the sky... (Matthew 16:1-4).

Is Matthew 16:1-4 relevant to the topic, it is a condemnation to the unbelieving covenant people of God who has Abraham as their "father". Is what the unbelieving people need other possibilities? They need repentance.

There is no such thing called elitism in thelogy, but there is only the truth and the form of doctrines received. God has given an absolute, objective belief system that we are responsible to maintain (Jude 3), the house of God is the pillar and ground of the truth, and we are responsbile for faithful doctrines (I Tim 3:15, Acts 2:42, II Tim 1:13, 2:15, 24,25, I Tim 1:3, 4:6 Eph 4:14 Rom 6:17). God's house has always been a confessional people (Deut. 26). There is no such things as other possiblities, there is only the doctrines and the truth received from the Apostles that is recorded in II Peter 3:10 regarding this matter.

Scripture is sufficient and is clear in this matter, that Christ comes after the millenium. There is no shred of evidence as Christ comes before the millenium, not even in Revelation Chapter 20. On the contrary, Revelation Chapter 20 teaches Christ comes with judgment and with fire from heaven after the millenium, it matches what Peter said in II Peter 3:10.

Any argument should based on the scripture and how to interpretate God's Word faithfully. Calling something elitism to solve a problem does not make any sense.

Originally Posted by YXU

There is no such thing called elitism in thelogy, but there is only the truth and the form of doctrines received.
Scripture is sufficient and is clear in this matter, that Christ comes after the millenium. There is no shred of evidence as Christ comes before the millenium, not even in Revelation Chapter 20. On the contrary, Revelation Chapter 20 teaches Christ comes with judgment and with fire from heaven after the millenium, it matches what Peter said in II Peter 3:10.
Any argument should based on the scripture and how to interpretate God's Word faithfully. Calling something elitism to solve a problem does not make any sense.

There is a certain incongruity in these statements. Elitism does not refer to those who are right. It refers to those who are self-proclaimed experts and look down on those who don't agree. On this board we have paedos and credos. We have amils, premils and postmils. We discuss these issues with charity, attempting to understand one another while at the same time disagreeing. Occasionally someone comes along and thinks that he has all the answers to all the questions because God has given him all the understanding of all the Scriptures and he's going to set everyone straight. This is theological elitism, and it runs rampant among christendom, reformed or not.
Though I find amil to be a stretch, I do give it credibility because there are some good points to be made. However, it does come back to one's hermeneutics and understanding of Scripture. Much of my understanding is simply because there is an article before "thousand years" in Revelation 20. I don't need to push that on anyone else. But neither will I accept what I perceive as an imposition on Scripture. Many who argue against premil impose their understanding on premil in their arguments (as has been done in this thread many times). Will Jesus return in judgment at the beginning of the millennium? I think so. But not to establish the eternal state. He WILL return at the end of the millennium final judgment though - and on that we agree.
What it comes down to, here, is that this has been hashed out a bazillion times on this board. On occasion someone is convinced. But usually it's a time of gaining mutual understanding and, hopefully, respect.
Before continuing to discredit the arguments that are given for premil, it would be prudent and wise to first search the threads here in order to understand what the premil folks on this discussion board really think, and what their arguments are. From there, perhaps, there would be room for further debate. But, more likely, you'll see that they are just as convinced as you are and ready to be gracious to brothers who differ in eschatological specifics, but share joy in the certain hope of our Savior returning in triumph and glory.


Respectfully,
Your brother,
kai sundoulos Christou,

Brother,

I got your idea, I am not thinking about you as low. I rejoice with all those who rejoice about the coming of our Lord. I will examine myself so that in further communication, it should be made in charity and peace.

But I do want to hear about the opinion of brothers who hold premil's view based on their careful examination of the scripture about three verses, II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15 and I Corinthians 15:23.

Regards,
Xu

Jude 14? You mean that verse that mentions Enoch? Who was raptured up in Gen 5:24?

Originally Posted by Grymir

Jude 14? You mean that verse that mentions Enoch? Who was raptured up in Gen 5:24?

Sometimes I amaze myself!!!!

<-----The applause from the studio audience!


Alot of ideas on this thread are based on chronological timing in Biblical passages.

But in Luke 18:18,19 Jesus is quoting a passage in the O.T. In vs 19 Jesus end saying "To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." Then in vs 21 He says "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." It's from Isaiah 61:1,2. In vs 2 Isaiah writes - "To proclaim the acceptable day of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God."

Notice that Jesus Himself stopped reading in the middle of the sentence of Isaiah 61:2. This at least shows that although things follow each other, they don't have to follow immediately chronologically.

But, YXU, why do you want to know my interpretation of those verses? Is there not better people than me to provide good interpretation? Or is this a Colombo type question to draw us pre-mil types out and attempt to squash us? You already think we are non-confessional. I love to debate as much or even more-so than others and can do a good job, but I wanted to establish some parameters first. And when I debate, I like to go for the jugular first (), so there would be better, more difficult passages to explain...

...on both sides. That's the problem. Both (or all) sides have issues and problematic passages that have to be resolved. Those have been written about, sung about, talked about, and yes, even debated ad infanitum.

And most of your OP has been answered already by people much wiser than me, so if you want to hash out verses like this (which would be off topic), lets start a seperate thread and have at it! A pre-mil/post/amil smackdown!

II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15 and I Corinthians 15:23

I looked at all these and even though I lean amill I don't see anything therein which would disprove pre-mil