Major doctrinal errors found in Amillennialism.

[ewq1938]

52. Does the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:5 take place "at the second coming"?


Sometimes Amillennialism teaches that the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:5 takes place "at the second coming" but that is wrong. According to the bible, the second coming is mainly found in Revelation 19, with Christ descending from heaven to fight and destroy the army of the beast at Armageddon.


Even in Amillennialism the resurrection of Revelation 20:5 does not take place "at the second coming":


Rev 20:9 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 (Amillennialism's second coming).
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


(unknown amount of time)


Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Here is when the final resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:5 will take place, just prior to the actual throne judgment. The second coming is completed by the time of this passage.


As you can see, the resurrection of Revelation 20:5 does not occur at Amillennialism's second coming. There is an unknown amount of time between verse 9 and verses 12 and 13. Either way, this final resurrection is after the second coming in both Premillennialism and Amillennialism.

 

[ewq1938]

53. What does Revelation 20:4-6 mean?

Related to number 4.

Some Amillennialists interpret Revelation 20:6 this way:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection [who is Jesus]: on such [who are Born Again] the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years [unknown length of time].

That is not what the actual verses present.




How can unsaved people be killed for the testimony of Christ and after physical death, they experience a spiritual resurrection. That's opposite of what the chapter says and opposite of the order of events. One must first be born again to be able to have the testimony of Christ and then be killed for it. The spiritual rebirth happens before dying physically for Christ!

This is the true meaning of the verses:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; [these were born again Christians before they were killed, being the main reason they will be killed] and they lived [when a dead person becomes Zao/alive a physical resurrection took place] and reigned with Christ a thousand years [a literal and exact amount of years].
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again [these are those who did not live again when the beheaded saints did] until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [described in more detail in the next verse]
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection [the first bodily resurrection of some of the dead, the second resurrection happens after the thousand years for the rest of the dead]: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. [this reign can only happen after the resurrection of the dead in Christ which happens only at the second coming]

 

[ewq1938]

54. Revelation 19:18, "and the flesh of all men". Does this literally mean all men on the entire Earth?

Amillennialism is well known for symbolizing a huge number of things in scripture but here suddenly they take a hyper-literal approach? How inconsistent!


Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Most people are able to understand that the context of this is within the army that is being described. "all men" is simply all the types of men from Generals all the way down to slaves. All types of men, not all men everywhere.

It is not saying all human beings on the planet will be killed and eaten.

Look at some similar language from the same book:


Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Is this saying all humans on Earth will take the mark of the beast or is it again saying all types from high ranking people down to low ranking people will take the mark?

In both passages there are the mighty and rich, and the free and the slaves. All of them take the mark, but not all humans take the mark. It is the same in Revelation 19 where an army is described and all of them from the most important to the least important will be killed. The context is never]/u] a global slaughter of all humans.

 

[ewq1938]

55. More on what the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is, and is not.

This is related to number 4.

Amillennialism teaches that the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20 is Christ's own resurrection but that does not match the wording or the context of the passage.

Jesus was the first singular resurrection from the dead raised in an immortal body. That is found in the gospels and other places in the NT. (Jesus was not the first person to be resurrected.)

The beheaded saints of Revelation 20 are the first group to be resurrected from the dead.

The first resurrection of Revelation 20 is not a singular person resurrecting. It's an unknown amount of people, as a group, resurrecting.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The first resurrection in these verses is not Jesus resurrecting because he did that thousands of years before the timeframe of Revelation 20. The first resurrection of Revelation 20 is a group of dead Christians resurrecting like He did! He resurrected in an immortal body. The beheaded saints of Revelation 20 shall also resurrect in immortal bodies.

 

[maxwel]

Doctrine saves no one. God does not have a theological entrance exam to heaven.
1 Corinthians 2:2
1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Hey Gideon,
I understand your point, that we should spend more of our time on essential things, and less time on murky non-essential things.


I think that's a good point.
I think there is a time and place for all things, but the essentials are more important than non-essentials... you make a good point.
We should give the essential things the preeminence.

Although you make a really good point, we might want to consider saying it differently, and maybe saying it more carefully.
Why?
Because in modern church culture, the word "doctrine" gets thrown around kind of carelessly, and we don't generally use it in a careful biblical way.... and in the bible it has a really crucial meaning.

Doctrine:
a.) The word translated "doctrine" that we find in some English translations is from the word didaskalia, which means "the teaching" or "that which is taught."
b.) It's often translated as "teaching" or "instruction."
c.) It can refer to the "act of teaching", or to "that which is taught".... in the latter sense we find it referring to the important tenets of the faith... the things we are to believe and teach.
d.) The way this word is used in scripture, it IS VERY IMPORTANT, and it INCLUDES THE GOSPEL MESSAGE.
e.) Within the simple gospel message, we actually find SEVERAL DOCTRINES, and the simple gospel also IMPLIES SEVERAL OTHER DOCTRINES. So even in the simple gospel, we find ourselves confronted with "doctrine"... "the teachings."
f.) We find this word for doctrine, disdaskalia, cropping up over and over, all throughout the New Testament... and we are commanded to both learn and teach the "doctrine", or "the teachings."
g.) So DOCTRINE, or THE TEACHINGS, is a very good thing... and it refers EVEN TO THE ESSENTIALS... LIKE THE GOSPEL.

We are literally commanded to keep and teach the didaskalia... it's a command.

I think what we want to say is, some didaskalia is more essential than other didaskalia.
So doctrine is crucial... but SOME types of doctrine are more crucial than others.



God Bless, and I hope you've been doing well.

.

 

[Magenta]

didaskalia

My new word for the day .

 

[Gideon300]

Hey Gideon,
I understand your point, that we should spend more of our time on essential things, and less time on murky non-essential things.


I think that's a good point.
I think there is a time and place for all things, but the essentials are more important than non-essentials... you make a good point.
We should give the essential things the preeminence.

Although you make a really good point, we might want to consider saying it differently, and maybe saying it more carefully.
Why?
Because in modern church culture, the word "doctrine" gets thrown around kind of carelessly, and we don't generally use it in a careful biblical way.... and in the bible it has a really crucial meaning.

Doctrine:
a.) The word translated "doctrine" that we find in some English translations is from the word didaskalia, which means "the teaching" or "that which is taught."
b.) It's often translated as "teaching" or "instruction."
c.) It can refer to the "act of teaching", or to "that which is taught".... in the latter sense we find it referring to the important tenets of the faith... the things we are to believe and teach.
d.) The way this word is used in scripture, it IS VERY IMPORTANT, and it INCLUDES THE GOSPEL MESSAGE.
e.) Within the simple gospel message, we actually find SEVERAL DOCTRINES, and the simple gospel also IMPLIES SEVERAL OTHER DOCTRINES. So even in the simple gospel, we find ourselves confronted with "doctrine"... "the teachings."
f.) We find this word for doctrine, disdaskalia, cropping up over and over, all throughout the New Testament... and we are commanded to both learn and teach the "doctrine", or "the teachings."
g.) So DOCTRINE, or THE TEACHINGS, is a very good thing... and it refers EVEN TO THE ESSENTIALS... LIKE THE GOSPEL.

We are literally commanded to keep and teach the didaskalia... it's a command.

I think what we want to say is, some didaskalia is more essential than other didaskalia.
So doctrine is crucial... but SOME types of doctrine are more crucial than others.



God Bless, and I hope you've been doing well.

.

Thank you, I am well. I would love to see sound teaching restored to the number one priority in the life of the church. Of course, I generalise and I don't know every church in the world. But I see enough to trouble me.

 

[ewq1938]

56. Is the thousand year rule over the nations of Revelation 20 not mentioned in other areas of the bible?

The 1000 year rule is mentioned in various parts of the bible, in various ways, usually describing events that take place during it such as found at the end of Revelation 2, Daniel 7:11-12, Daniel 7:23-26, Isaiah 2:2-4, 24:21-23, Zechariah 14:16 etc. Even Amillennialism teaches that Christ spoke of Revelation 20's binding when he spoke of the strong man being bound.


Revelation contains information no other part of the bible does such as the making of the image of the beast and making it come alive and talk, the mark of the beast, the false prophet, the seven seals, seven trumps and seven vials, ascension of the two prophets, the 42 months of the beast, the war in heaven, 600 and 60 and 6 (666), the sealing of the 144k, the bloody winepress, Armageddon, the harlot Babylon, new Jerusalem coming from heaven, a new fruit every month from the tree of life in the eternity etc.

Amillennialism doesn't ask for corroboration of those things yet questions the thousand years quite often.

 

[ewq1938]

57. Does Amillennialism understand the difference between being born again and being resurrected?

Apparently not.

It is very common to see Amillennialists confuse being born again in life with being resurrected from the dead.

They will often cite this:

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

and

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

These are both obviously about being born again during one's lifetime.

They claim these are both synonymous with what John says in Revelation 20:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Obviously Amillennialism ignores that these people were KILLED by being BEHEADED, so when John says they lived and reigned with Christ he is not describing them being born again in life ie: accepting Christ as Messiah and being saved. John is clearly describing what happened to a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian after they have been KILLED. There comes a time at the second coming when a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian will be bodily resurrected.

Amillennialism does not understand the difference between being born again and being bodily resurrected after bodily dying.

 

[ewq1938]

58. Does the bible promise the Kingdom of God will come to the Earth?


Yes, but Amillennialism usually denies this fact. There are many scriptures that prove this but the easiest way to disprove Amillennialism on this is here:


Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


As you see, the kingdom already existed in the first century on Earth in believers. It has existed in believers on Earth ever since and continues to exist on the Earth in believers to this day.

 

[ewq1938]

59. Does Amillennialism promote the gospel being locked in the pit with satan?

Yes, sadly.

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Amillennialism teaches that the chain binding satan is the gospel and according to the above passage, that "gospel" gets to spend the longer-than-a-thousand-years-thousand years in the bottomless pit with satan and other evil beings and spirits and demons etc.


Where does Amill believe the gospel belongs? In the bottomless pit with satan! With those who cannot and will not accept the gospel! Shouldn't the gospel be in the world with us??

The gospel is NOT the chain an angel brings down from heaven! The gospel is in the world already long before this happens! The gospel NEVER is locked and sealed inside the pit!