RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I've been premil since 2012. I think it is easier to read Revelation 20 in an amil framework. I now consider myself "futurist amil." Some issues:
1) I still hold to much of Alan Kurschner's reading of Matthew 24. And if his reading is correct, it demands something like a future Antichrist.
2) I hold to a late date on Revelation.
3) I am not an optimistic amil. I am quite "realist" (to use a neutral term) about the future.
4) There are some difficulties with amil. Recapitulation readings of Revelation run into difficulties trying to square Rev. 12-13 with Revelation 20. If Satan is bound during the entire church age, then it's hard to account for his actions of deceiving the nations in Rev. 13. That's why I probably opt for a future interpretation.
Anyway, that's a development for me.
1) I still hold to much of Alan Kurschner's reading of Matthew 24. And if his reading is correct, it demands something like a future Antichrist.
2) I hold to a late date on Revelation.
3) I am not an optimistic amil. I am quite "realist" (to use a neutral term) about the future.
4) There are some difficulties with amil. Recapitulation readings of Revelation run into difficulties trying to square Rev. 12-13 with Revelation 20. If Satan is bound during the entire church age, then it's hard to account for his actions of deceiving the nations in Rev. 13. That's why I probably opt for a future interpretation.
Anyway, that's a development for me.