Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« I'm on KFUO Today | Main | Some Interesting Links . . . »

Eschatology Q & A: What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Different Millennial Views?


Lëmi asks (October 31, 2007):  "Could you explain briefly all the millennial positions pointing out their main strengths and weaknesses?"
Thanks for the question Lëmi.  Although I could write a book-length answer to your question (and hopefully will one of these days), I'll do what I can to give you as concise an answer as possible.

Lets start with premillennialism.  As for its strengths, there seem to be two.  One is the fact that Revelation 19 depicts the return of Christ, while Revelation 20:1-10 depicts the reign of Christ on the earth.  If these chapters describe consecutive events (a point with which I would take issue) then this would place the millennial age after Christ's return.  A second apparent strength is that a number of church fathers state that this was the teaching passed on to them by the eyewitnesses to the ministry of the apostles, although this was not the only view in the early church (see Charles Hill's Regnun Caelorum)--Click here: Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity: Books: Charles E. Hill

There are several serious weaknesses with premillennialism.  The first weakness is that premillenniarians have to explain how it is that people make it through the return of Christ and yet remain in natural bodies.  Jesus taught that his return marks the end of the age (Matthew 13:39) and that after his return, people no longer marry or are given in marriage (Luke 20:34-36).  At Christ's return, he judges the world, making it tough for someone to be judged and yet not eternally condemned or rewarded with eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46).  This is especially problematic for premillennarians, since they claim that their view is based upon a "literal" interpretation of prophecy.  Where, then, is the one-thousand year gap between the return of Christ and the judgment (which, according to premillennarians takes place at the end of the millennium) when Jesus teaches that judgment takes place at his return?  Those who take the Bible "literally" find themselves having to insert a gap into the biblical text which isn't there. 

The other problem with premillennialism is, if it be true, there is a great apostasy on the earth after one thousand years of Christ's rule (Revelation 20:7-10).  If there cannot be people on earth in natural bodies during the thousand years (which supposedly comes after Christ returns), then who are the people who revolt against Christ at the end of the millennium?  And that after Christ's own rule?  It makes much more sense to see Revelation 20:1-10 as a description of the entire inter-advental age, since the scene takes place in heaven where the thrones are (vv. 1-6), before shifting to the earth in verses 7-10.

As for dispensational premillennialism, both the strengths and weaknesses of premillennialism generally apply.  But if we consider dispenationalism on its own terms, its main strength is a stress upon progressive revelation (the careful consideration of how God interacts with his people throughout the different stages of redemptive history).  We can also say that one of its strengths is its emphasis upon the imminent return of Christ. 

As for weaknesses, there are many.  One is that the presuppositions of dispensationalism (which, despite protests to the contrary, is a hermeneutic) cannot be sustained.  The belief that God has distinct redemptive purposes for Israel and for the Gentiles is highly problematic in light of a text like Ephesians 2:11-22.   Another serious problem with dispensationalism is the way in which the "literal interpretation" of Scripture is worked out in practice.  The dispensational stress upon "literalism" actually amounts to an Israel-centered hermeneutic, largely taken from the Old Testament prophets which then predetermines what the New Testament authors can tell us about Israel.

As I have argued elsewhere (Click here: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur), this approach is seriously flawed.  The New Testament presents a Christ-centered reading of redemptive history and reinterprets the place of Israel in that redemptive history in light of the coming of Jesus Christ, who is the true Israel.

As for postmillennialism, remember that both postmillennarians and amillennarians hold in common the idea that the millennial age precedes the return of Christ and the consummation.  So the structural strengths and weaknesses of each will be similar.  The essential difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism is in how we understand the nature and character of the millennial age.

Postmillennialism's greatest strength is the rhetorical stress upon optimism regarding the kingdom of God and its ability to transform the nations of the earth before Christ returns.  Postmillennarians extend the kingdom of God beyond spiritual matters (word and sacrament) to the transformation of culture--a point with which I would disagree.  Postmillennarians generally believe that Jesus returns to a saved earth, he does not return to save the earth (as amillennarians believe). 

This means that the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the determination of the beginning of the millennial age--"when do the thousand years begin?"  Some have seen this in the conversion of Israel, the overthrow of Antichrist (usually defined as Romanism or Islam) and the conversion of the nations.  Obviously, these things have not yet happened.  Therefore, the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the denial of an imminent return of Christ--which explains why so many postmillennarians are attracted to preterism, the understanding Christ returned in judgment upon Israel in A.D. 70.

As for amillennialism, it has no weaknesses whatsoever, since it is the biblical position (I'm being facetious).  In all seriousness, Amillennialism's strength is its understanding that imminent return of Christ is the consummation of all things and marks the fullness of both the kingdom of God and the age to come.  Christ will return to judge the world (Matthew 13:36-43; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9), raise the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:54-57) and make all things new (2 Peter 3:3-15).  He does not return to set up a kingdom (as in premillennialism), but to usher in the eternal state and create a new heaven and earth--the final consummation.

The biggest weakness of amillennialism is in the details--what does John mean by the binding of Satan?  Can we really say Satan is bound now? (I say "yes").  What about the first resurrection in Revelation 20?  Is John referring to regeneration, or the bodily resurrection?  These things require a fair amount of explanation, especially since most American evangelicals know only the premillennial view.
That's a very brief answer.  For more information, I would suggest my two books:  A Case for Amillennialism (Click here: Riddleblog - A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End), and Man of Sin (Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist), or the book by Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Click here: The Bible and the Future: Books: Anthony A. Hoekema)

Reader Comments (20)

Though I tend to agree with the amillennial position as you present it in your "A case for..." book, I think that you ought to be fair and include the +/- of the full preterist view of the millennium in this response.
January 9, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterElShaddai Edwards
Mr. Edwards:

Lemi's question was about millennial positions (pre, post or "a"). I do address preterism in some detail in my book, Man of Sin.
January 9, 2008 | Registered CommenterKim Riddlebarger
I believe that the stars of heaven that we see fall unto the earth (Re.6:13 below) at the Sixth SEAL (Re.6:12 below) are the Dragon (Re.12:3 below) and the third part of the stars of heaven (Re.12:4 below), his angels.

I believe that it is at the Sixth SEAL that Satan and his angels are cast INTO the earth (Re.12:9 below) to be locked into the bottomless pit until he and his angels are released at the Fifth TRUMPET (Re.9:1-2 below).

The beasts of Daniel, chapter 7, will ascend from the bottomless pit at the opening of the Fifth TRUMPET.

Re.6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the SIXTH SEAL, and, lo, there was a GREAT EARTHQUAKE; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood (Matt.24:29, Acts.2:20, Joel 2:31);

Re.6:13 And the stars of heaven (Re.12:4 below) fell unto the earth (Matt.24:29, Mk.13:25), even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Re.12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Re.12:4 And his tail drew THE THIRD PART of the stars of heaven (Re.6:13 above), and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Re.12:9 And the GREAT DRAGON was cast out, that OLD SERPENT, called the DEVIL, and SATAN, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out INTO the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Re.9:1 And the fifth (trumpet) angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit .

Re.9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

Pat (ndbpsa ©) Bible Prophecy on the Web
January 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPatricia Burns
what would be meant by the term "doctrinaire amillennialism"?
January 10, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermatthew
How about this:
You do not believe in a Pre Trib Rapture, Correct ?

John stated he is writing Chronologically (several times actually in this book).

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
Rev 5:12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and

There is a group of number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands. Who is this group of people ???

And who are these who return with Christ ? (again written Chronologically):

Rev 19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:....Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Is this the same group mentioned in Revelation 5 ? And the singers stated they are the redeemed ones.

January 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZechariah
I forgot to ask: Why are they reigining on the earth ? And what do they reign over if their is no Millenial period as mentioned by Christ ?
January 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZechariah
And sorry for the Typos ! I have been riduculed in this blog before for not using spell check...So Sorry in advance !
January 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZechariah

As you may have gathered, there is a reason why I have not responded to your many posts and why my readers are so frustrated by your comments.

As a dispensationalist, you come here disagreeing with my position. That is fine by me. I am a former dispensationalist, and once thought amillennialism to be unbiblical, if not diabolical. I understand how you feel. Trust me, I really do.

You obviously don't like what you find here and so you react with a series of rants. But as you rant, it becomes clear to me and others that you have not bothered to read and digest what was written, and that you don't understand what we've said (because you are closed-minded and won't even consider it). It is hard to take your ranting seriously because you won't interact with any of the biblical passages cited, or the arguments that have been adduced.

So let me put it this way--you are free to post here and disagree. But in those cases where it is clear that you don't read and actually wrestle with the arguments presented, I won't allow you to rant.

Zechariah, we are all Christians. I don't want to be wrong in my eschatology and I know you do not. Iron sharpens iron. Read what is said, pray about it, wrestle with it. If you still don't agree that's OK. Convince us we are wrong, by reading what we say and actually making the effort to understand the amillennial position. You can't refute it if you don't know what it is . . . and so far, it is apparent that you haven't got a clue because you haven't done the work.

So, if you continue ranting without doing the wrestling, off you go! If you wrestle but disagree, you are welcome.

Fair enough?
January 10, 2008 | Registered CommenterKim Riddlebarger

You, Todd Wilken, Hank Hannagraf and the like regularly use your media platforms to lump "dispensationalists" which is about as overused and distorted as the word "Calvinist", all in the same camp. You owe many an apology, you use crazy examples like some of those people who were y2k nuts and Pat Robertson (who I would argue isn't even a believer) as a reason to discredit all of us.

It really bothers me that you term Macarthur's message at the 2007 Shepherds as "A shot across the bow",when in fact he is only stating a very widely accepted exegetical position refuting "Replacement Theology" But I noticed you don't label him, Why ?

I really respect much of your work, but there is far too much labelling here on this forum. We are not all like Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsay and Pat Robertson.

We all agree on a Rapture the question is when is occurs.

And the only thing I do no disagree with you on (that matters to me) is a literal period of Tribulation. So we are not that different after all, are we ?

January 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZechariah

As another individual who was once premillennial (dispensational premillennial) but am now amillennial, I realize that there's disagreement about whether the seal, trumpet and bowl judgments refer to (a) the events of AD 70, or (b) the course of this present age, or (c) an unprecedented time of tribulation immediately prior to Christ's return, etc.

But even if the judgments of Rev. 6,8-9 and 16 refer to the future (in your chronological scheme), I see no reason why this would lead to the premil view!

Why not?

Mainly because the reign of God's people on earth (Rev. 5:10) could very well refer to the ETERNAL reign of God's people in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 22:5). I think it's pretty clear that the reign of Rev. 22:5 is both eternal ("they will reign forever and ever") and related to the new heaven and earth (cf. the context: Rev. 21:1-22:5).

You also asked about the possible linkage between the saints in Rev. 5 and those in Rev. 19. Personally, I think it's clear that such saints are in heaven. In Rev. 5 the worship is occurring in heaven, and in Rev. 19 the saints accompany the King of kings and Lord of lords from heaven to earth.

I see this as quite similar to what we learn from I Thessalonians. Not only does I Thes. 3:13 refer to the coming of the Lord Jesus with all His saints, but I Thes. 4:14, which is unquestionably referring to the return of Christ, speaks of the fact that when Christ returns to raise the dead and rapture the living (cf. vv. 15-17) He will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus (v. 14). I take it that those who have fallen asleep in Jesus are none other than believers who have died prior to Christ's return, and thus who have been in Christ's presence in heaven (cf. Lk. 23:43; II Cor. 5:6,8; Phil. 1:21,23).

Thus I Thes. 3:13 and 4:14, I think, refer to the same phenomenon as Rev. 19:14.

But there's more!

If (for the sake of argument) one assumes that what occurs in Rev. 4 and 5 precedes what occurs in Rev. 6-18, then it appears that the ranks of the saints in heaven have been joined by those who have been martyred during a future tribulation (Rev. 6:9-11). Surely these martyred souls are at such a time in heaven (John saw their souls under the altar - Rev. 6:9). Confirmation is found in the description of the great multitude in Rev. 7:9-17, for this multitude is standing before God's throne (Rev. 7:9). Besides, where else would the souls of the martyrs be at this point, than in heaven? This is why they are differentiated from those who dwell on the earth (Rev. 6:11).

What's remarkable to me, and what was the final key in my abandonment of the premil view in favor of the amil view, is that in Rev. 20:1-10 (specifically v. 4) we have an almost exact verbal parallel with Rev. 6:9! In other words, the reign of Rev. 20:4-6 (the millennial reign!) is not a future reign on earth, but the present reign of the saints in heaven, prior to Christ's "post-trib" return! (And I see nothing about an earthly reign in Rev. 20, nothing that premils try to cram and pack into that period!)

You brought up the matter of chronology, and referred to the word "after" (such as in the repeated phrase "after these things"). However, I think we need to be careful to distinguish between what these things are! In some cases, the language is about what John saw and heard. In other cases, about the events themselves. I bring this up because even the staunchest premils agree that there is such a phenomenon as recapitulation in Rev. 4-19. Chapter 12 is a great example. Backtracking and racing ahead both occur in this book. And, given considerable evidence that the millennium of Rev. 20 is the current reign of Christ with His saints in heaven, it's very reasonable to see recapitulation as extending to the events of Rev. 19 and 20, relative to one another.

In conclusion, I see no reason why a future reign of Christ and His people on the earth cannot refer to the only post-second advent reign I see repeatedly in Scripture, namely the FOREVER AND EVER reign spoken of in II Sam. 7; Psa. 89; Isa. 9; Dan. 2 and 7; Lk. 1; etc. The King of kings and Lord of lords will return, and both He and His people will reign forever in the new heaven and earth.
January 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterWayne Rohde

I too was a dispie and pretrib and premil. However I decided some time ago that I was going to put in the work to read all of the eschatalogical positions. And so I did and now I am amill.

A couple of suggestions for you.

1. don't read books written by dispies on what they think amill is. That is like asking a Democrat on what they think a Republican is. Read the amill position by writers who are amill.. That is if you really want to get a fair representation of what amill. is.

2. After studying all of the positions ask your self which position brings Glory and Praise to Our Lord Jesus Christs. If my opinion counts for anything it is clear the most humble and praise worthy position is Amill.

3. I would recommend you doing a study on Recapitulation. There is an excellent article written by Dr. R. Fowler White called "Reexamining the evidence for Recapitulation in Rev. 20:1-10.

You can get this over the net by doing a search of the title and author.

God Bless
January 11, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterchris
>You owe many an apology, you use crazy examples like some of those people who were y2k nuts and Pat Robertson (who I would argue isn't even a believer) as a reason to discredit all of us.

These kind of discussions can get acrimonious real fast. Zechariah, you're at least interacting to a certain extent
(unlike Patricia Burns' drive by posting above).

We all know dispensationalism pretty well. It's the default eschatological position in much of Am. evangelicalism. Many of us have come out of that environment, read the books, sat under those teachers. We know it.

How well do you know other positions? If all you've read is pop eschatology by folks who talk about "replacement theology" and "spiritualising the text" then you've got a caricature of other positions.

Dispensationalism's biggest problem isn't with the end times chronology, IMHO. You can keep your Larkin charts, I don't care -- they're (wrong but) mostly harmless unless you start "day & hour" setting or anathematizing folks that don't toe the DP line. My problem with DP-ism is the radical Israel/Church (which is at the root of the whole weird chronology) and what that distinction does to the gospel. Want an example? John Hagee's little dance a month or two ago, regarding Jesus' status as messiah, could _only_ come up and only make sense in dispensationalism.

January 11, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterlee n. field
Greetings in Christ,

To start off with, I am a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister and I comsider myself Amillennialist. As you must know my denomination is a mess theologically. It does my heart good to see some good reformed theology.

February 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Ken Perreault
My question is this, why do you give no scriptures to show that Satan is bound at the present time, I'm newly looking into eschatological views and am very curious.

You give verses showing that Christ will judge the world and that he will make all things new and will raise the dead, but you show no scriptures actually proving the Ammilennialist view. Do you think you could give me some Biblical texts?
April 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterScott

You are obviously new to this blog! The main thing we do here is develop the biblical evidence for amillennialism.

Go to the "index to current posts" link at the top. Click on "eschatology Q & A" or "amillennialism 101." You even find a post treating Revelation 20 and the binding of Satan.

That should get you started
April 27, 2008 | Registered CommenterKim Riddlebarger

I grew up on Disp Premil. When I started reading about eschatology for myself and found out where Disp Premil came from and the whole John Darby think it obviously sunk that model completely. I was leaning Amil then when i started reading Preterism which strikes me as the most solid all around argument--full preterism.

One of the main reasons I've grown to trust Preterism is that if the apostles who were closer to Christ than anyone else believed and taught that Christ was coming back in their generation and the bible is the inerrant word of God then by definition they have to be right or the bible isn't inerrant. Preterism seems to be the only way to resolve that logic puzzle.

It fits best with a number of things, but also is the only model to resolve such statements of Jesus that this generation won't pass before the events come to pass (temple destroyed, end of age, coming into his kingdom), that some standing here will see the son of man coming in his kingdom, and that John would live to see him come. Preterism resolves all these statements in a straight forward manner while other models have to change around the normal meaning of words to resolve these meanings.

I find Zechariah 14 puzzling--can't find any model than can really explain it to any real degree of satisfaction. It sounds much like when God dealt with the Assyrians when they started to move on Jerusalem, but so far as we can tell Zechariah was written after those events took place.


September 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterWill
Let me ask you Mr. Kim Riddlebarger. Why those who holds to sola scriptura disagree in Millenial issue/in many other issues? In the name of christian liberty you people are doing much harm to the faithful christian community. Do you think people are edified by your interpretation of biblical text? Do you think that pastor's, scholars, exegets brings glory to God in this eschatological issue/and many critical issues? If you disagree with 2 other millenial issue. Can you convert John MacArthur or his whole church member's on your side of Conviction?
January 18, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterPhilipLazar
I was raised in a church which preached heavily on end time prophecies and the future glorious millenial rule of which people of my church were going to be co-rulers. I say church with a lower c because I now believe it was a cult. They were not premill or dispensation but kind of a mixture with some extra stuff thrown in. You can tell they might not have prophetic understanding when the original 19th Century founders interpretations fell very very flat.

The millenial kingdom was the hardest thing for me to grapple with because it violated everything that was written it the NT about the superior in all respects covenant that superceded the OT that was done away with for what sounded like forever.

So I went through a phase of accusing the writers of the NT of quoting scripture out of context. How can they possibly quote that OT Scripture in that context without taking it completely out of it's own context. That's not going to convince the readers and is tantamount to butchering. Wow was I wrong.

Then I went through the phase of Plan A and Plan B. The establishment of the Old Covenant as a millenial kingdom with Temple and sacrifices was Plan A when Jesus first appeared. But it instead switched to plan B, so while Plan A could have happened it got superceded by Plan B because of the turning point of the rejection and crucifixion. Only problem was that if Jesus did not died on the cross in the Plan A scenario and pay the price for my sin there was absolutely NO salvation. Dilemma.

I could not reconcile the 1000 year glorified mortal rule on earth at physical Jerusalem with physical sacrifices and physical temple with anything of what the NT said.

Thankfully now with the amill view I can, it has reconciled so many problems I faced and I feel now like I connect with the Apostles teaching. So when it says sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, it is welcome to the Acts of the Apostles.
August 6, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterDarryl
I enjoy reading the commentaries on church history and end times prophecy. The fact that the three main views each hold a sizeable number of adherents who are able to effectively counter the opinions of the other two camps indicates that the representative apologists are probably incapable of "nailing it down." The fact that there are so many critical eschatological links on a timeline that is less than clear should be sufficient for the Church to leave off taking any dogmatic position. When I was first saved I followed the premillennial view that the Church would be raptured before the Great Tribulation because that's what my denomination was teaching. Later I became less convinced of this position and considered that the Church would likely go through the Great Tribulation. Now I am quite unsure that there is even going to be a Great Tribulation at the very end just before Christ's return.
The easiest position to understand is undoubtedly, the Amillennial view. In terms of simplicity, it seems to be the one that causes the least confusion. Yet, if the Church does indeed, move in a great evangelistic move to the saving of the nations, then I think there is also a chance the "posties" may have it right. The main thing we Christians need to focus on is to be ready for the return of the Lord.
Debate on the end times is stimulating but I am convinced that each and every one of us has it wrong in at least one aspect of how things will unfold and be consummated.
November 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterRick

I appreciate your article, as well as some of the dialog in the comments. As you were gradually shifting in your position, you obviously began to accept the fact that there were holes in your premil position, which inevitably led you to accept amil. Do you see and accept holes with Amil? And if so, have you shared much about them, but still give reasons to why you believe Amil has the best weight of scripture?

I have been hyper indoctrinated with historic premil, post-trib, with a charismatic, postmilish slant of global transformation :)

I am, however, re-evaluating what I actually believe about eschatology. I think the average believer, typically with limited bible knowledge, simply takes the bible for what-it-says, which is just easier to accept. I believe that's the reason for the popular belief in premil, looking for both the soon coming of the anticrhist and the returning Christ. It's just easier to see it in the bible for so many.

For instance, with a natural reading of Mt 24, it seems to speak of things yet to come. There are many prophecies that just seem to fit better in the future, where an endtime tribulation, world-wide calamity could happen. Consider the seals, trumpets, and bowls, when naturally reading it, is much easier to see it in a future, progressive light. Not to mention a simple reading of Rev 20, where the 1000yrs is mentioned several times, seems to simply say there is a 1000 yr period.

This is why it's so hard to resist a premil-futuristic view of things. However, the premillers wooden literalism loses readers with other passages, such as much of the OT interpretations, like Ezekiel's supposed millennial temple with the Old Covenant law and sacrificial system set back up, in light of that system being fulfilled and abolished in Christ and the New Covenant argued so clearly for in Hebrews.

On the other hand, amillers arguments against a 'millennial kingdom' from 1 Cor 15 are naturally convincing, but they lose readers with their recapitulation arguments and spin on Rev 19-20. I can say, people don't even no what that word means, let alone see it from a natural reading. Point being, average believers are really faced with the dilemma of interpretation, or knowing how and what to believe. One guy says, "it is exactly what it says", the other guy says "well, it doesn't mean what it actually says." Hence, the massive confusion which causes much disillusionment for the average believer in deciding who's argument is right.

We all like to 'prove' our beliefs, which is right. However, I find it really helpful whenever I come across an author who shares his position, but is honest with regard to it's holes, and points the reader to some of the strengths of the other guy's position. It makes it easier for me to see where the weight of scripture leans towards the most.

Would you be open to share, not only the main strengths of Amil, which of course you do, but also the points that have troubled you the most, so we can see how you have processed through them.
January 23, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterBruce

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.