Major doctrinal errors found in Amillennialism.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
5,020
1,268
113
So you are assuming without any scriptural basis that there are no thrones under the altar in Rev 6?

Why are you assuming this?

I think it's pretty clear there are no thrones under an altar plus they are also clearly not in any state of being able to rule over anyone. Revelation 2 tells us the saints do not rule until after Christ has returned:

Rev 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. (second coming reference)
Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
5. First resurrection, a resurrection without a death?

Also, some in Amill alternatively claim those of the first resurrection never died in the first place despite it saying these were beheaded during the tribulation. Both claims regarding the first resurrection are false and each contradict the other.

6. Timeframe of the first resurrection.

Amill believes Christ comes after the Millennium yet Christ clearly returns before the Millennium because Rev 20 mentions the first resurrection occurring before the Millennium begins and that only happens at the second coming.
Why don't you just present what you believe and why, rather than post things that are completely and utterly wrong!

You don't have a clue what Amills believe or why. I'm Amill, going on over 40 years, although more recently have I studied the Bible on this! I'm in a number of Amill groups. I do not know one person who claims people never died in the first resurrection. In fact, there is ONLY one resurrection, and that is when Jesus returns. That is basic in Amill. Got it? One resurrection!

Your second point is so stupid anyone should see the hole, regardless of what they believe. Amills don't believe in the Millennium! So why would they think Christ comes after a Millennium they don't believe in? In fact, post Millennials believe Christ comes after the Millennium! Got it? "Post" means after! "A" means not. Not believing in the Millennium.

Everything you say is nonsense. I could refute every point you have put up on the basis of stupidity, but I won't waste my time & energy!!
 
Jan 14, 2021
1,599
526
113
That's not ruling on a throne or wielding a rod of iron over others.
The Rev 2 line about ruling with an iron rod is a throwback to Psalms.

"Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." - Psalms 2:9 KJV

And when we follow the connected metaphor between iron rods and breaking pottery, it brings us back to Romans 9.

"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: [...] That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. [...] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. [...] For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" - Romans 9 (various)

We see based on these metaphors that destruction is going to come to groups that may feel entitled to honour but have only been built up and will be freely destroyed to serve God's purposes. The chapter references those that would call themselves Israel on the basis of flesh but are not truly part of God's promise.

From an amill perspective, the rule by a rod of iron can easily be interpretted as a warning that we will see many groups rise and fall in power as part of God's plan (rather than the interpretation that it serves as some warning about strictness).

I think it's pretty clear there are no thrones under an altar
But that's my point, you aren't basing this on anything in scripture.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
5,020
1,268
113
But that's my point, you aren't basing this on anything in scripture.
No, that's what you are doing. No throne is mentioned, but you there believe are thrones. No rod of iron is mentioned, but you still think they have them. No ruling is described but that doesn't stop you from believing they are. Multiple thrones under an altar is like thinking there are multiple thrones under your oven. Nothing you believe in here is based on scripture yet you accuse me of that? Laughable.
 
Jan 14, 2021
1,599
526
113
No, that's what you are doing. No throne is mentioned, but you there believe are thrones. No rod of iron is mentioned, but you still think they have them. No ruling is described but that doesn't stop you from believing they are. Multiple thrones under an altar is like thinking there are multiple thrones under your oven. Nothing you believe in here is based on scripture yet you accuse me of that? Laughable.
I never mentioned what I believe, we are examining what is consistent with scripture. It isn't necessary for there to be thrones under the altar in order for the saints to reign with Christ, but it still remains a possibility that there are. You made the claim that "because" the saints under the altar aren't on thrones that they could not have been reigning with Christ. Even if you made a convincing case for why the act of sitting on a throne in Rev 6 was somehow required, your claim that they aren't sitting on thrones is baseless guesswork.

It would be like declaring Moses's staff was exactly 5.5 feet tall. OK, that's your interpretation, but that does not give you grounds to dismiss other interpretations simply because they are incompatible with your own guess.

no rod of iron is mentioned
You brought up Rev 2:27 regarding the iron rod. Your comment here is puzzling.

no thrones mentioned
The lack of a description for a throne does not necessitate that no thrones are present. If you understood formal logic you would agree with that point.

You could make a case for why you feel that thrones under the altar are uncompelling. That is a reasonable approach to the topic. But calling something uncompelling is categorically different than calling something false (or necessarily untrue). You would also agree with that point if you understood formal logic.

It's not necessarily your fault in this case, it just seems that you are misspeaking because you are unfamiliar with some nuances of rational discourse. The best solution is just to take some time to familiarize yourself with the formal logic.

No ruling is described but that doesn't stop you from believing they are.
The premise you are presenting here is: "It is not necessarily the case that the saints are reigning with Christ in Rev 6"

I agree. But it is also true that "It is not necessarily the case that the saints are not reigning"

Multiple thrones under an altar is like thinking there are multiple thrones under your oven.
This is a good example of making a case for why you feel a premise is uncompelling. This approach is good.

My counter comes in two parts: 1) If all the saints are under the altar, how huge is this altar? If it is big enough for the saints to be under the altar, why not chairs as well? And 2) since amill typically takes the position that Rev is figurative to begin with, Rev 6 is reasonably a series of metaphors rather than literal things. As metaphors they aren't required to perfectly match up with real life proportions or 1:1 represented quantities (can you imagine the unrealistic size of the wheat field or barn required in the parable of the wheat and tares if the metaphor required us to imagine a literal wheat or tare stalk for every human in history?).

Nothing you believe in here is based on scripture yet you accuse me of that? Laughable.
And this kind of language is what happens when the presenter resorts to appealing to feelings rather than pursuing logical discourse. Rise above it. Don't stoop down to that level.

If you want to call something a false doctrine or a false belief, you better have some arguments to demonstrate that it is a necessary conclusion following from scripture alone. If it is not a necessary conclusion, you should only claim your position as conjecture and state that you feel your position is compellingly the case. Or, if you are borrowing from nonChristian texts to supplement you could condition your statement with a reference to the secondary text (e.g. "that is a false doctrine according to the book of Mormon").

You claimed that amill is a false doctrine because it contradicts scripture.

I claimed that there are forms of amill consistent with scripture.

Instead of acknowledging that your evidence did not match up with your claim, you evaded the criticism and tried to apply the same type of criticism to my claim despite the fact that my claim is categorically different and that criticism does not make sense against my claim.

Is it possible that there were thrones under the altar? YES. Therefore your argument about throneless saints under the altar was meaningless in regards to your claim about amill.
 

Journeyman

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2019
2,107
763
113
20. Saints in heaven not reigning with Christ on thrones?

The souls of dead saints in the 5th seal should be on thrones reigning in heaven if Amill is correct, but they aren't since they are under the altar, which means reigning with Christ on thrones is a future event.
The saints under the altar were killed because the King of all sent them as ambassadors.

even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you are saved!
and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus Eph.2:4-5

We should focus on how our Lord above wants us to rule over people who don't know him.
 

wintersrain

Active member
Feb 20, 2022
257
57
28
Yes that would have been amazing and exhilarating and terrifying.
For me the terrifying part would have been holding back from stopping the Roman's putting him under arrest. I'd have been one of those telling Peter to swing for their heads, not the ear. lol
But even that was a metaphor I think Jesus let to happen. As in, they had the ears but they could not hear. Then right before the eyes of those there to make the arrest Jesus replaced the severed ear on the man, and he was made whole.

Who'd arrest a man for being a false prophet after witnessing that?
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
5,020
1,268
113
21. When are the dead resurrected? When are the beast and false prophet cast into the lake of fire? Before the resurrection or after?

If the resurrection of the dead occurs in Revelation 19 when Christ returns then that happens before the false prophet and beast are cast into the lake of fire.

If the unsaved dead are not resurrected at the same time the saved dead are, then that places the unsaved dead's resurrection after the beast and false prophet have been cast into the lake of fire exactly as Revelation 20 tells us. Amillennialism teaches all the dead (saved and unsaved) are resurrected at the same time or very close but the fact that the saved dead are resurrected BEFORE the beast and false prophet have been cast into the lake of fire and the fact that the unsaved dead are resurrected AFTER the beast and false prophet have been cast into the lake of fire proves there are actually two separate resurrection days for those who are dead.

After the saved dead are resurrected there is over a thousand years before the unsaved dead are resurrected.
 

Journeyman

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2019
2,107
763
113
For me the terrifying part would have been holding back from stopping the Roman's putting him under arrest. I'd have been one of those telling Peter to swing for their heads, not the ear. lol
Me too. It's amazing how they ran away before they really understood the strength of Jesus. After, they died like he did. Just incredible.

But even that was a metaphor I think Jesus let to happen. As in, they had the ears but they could not hear. Then right before the eyes of those there to make the arrest Jesus replaced the severed ear on the man, and he was made whole.

Who'd arrest a man for being a false prophet after witnessing that?
It's possible the scene was so chaotic they didn't see it.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
5,020
1,268
113
22. Jesus returns at the 5th trump or the 7th trump, or both?

Amillennialism sometimes teaches that Jesus is the angel descending from Heaven to the Earth to open the pit in the fifth trump. They also claim that is the same event of the 7th trump which they place in Revelation 20:9. They claim Revelation 9:1 is the same exact event as Revelation 20:1 yet Revelation 9:1 is the 5th trump and Revelation 20:9 is the 7th trump (according to Amillennialism). How can the same exact event be in two different trumps especially when the 6th trump between them is the Great Tribulation?

Does Jesus descend from heaven to open the pit in the 5th trump or the 7th trump?
Does Jesus descend from heaven to open the pit before the tribulation/6th trump or after it has ended?
Is Revelation 9:1 truly the same event as found in Revelation 20:1?
Why are they in different trumps?

The truth is the angel is not Jesus in either passage. The angel opens the pit in the 5th trump and returns to lock satan in the pit after the second coming is completed.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
22. Jesus returns at the 5th trump or the 7th trump, or both?

Amillennialism sometimes teaches that Jesus is the angel descending from Heaven to the Earth to open the pit in the fifth trump. They also claim that is the same event of the 7th trump which they place in Revelation 20:9. They claim Revelation 9:1 is the same exact event as Revelation 20:1 yet Revelation 9:1 is the 5th trump and Revelation 20:9 is the 7th trump (according to Amillennialism). How can the same exact event be in two different trumps especially when the 6th trump between them is the Great Tribulation?

Does Jesus descend from heaven to open the pit in the 5th trump or the 7th trump?
Does Jesus descend from heaven to open the pit before the tribulation/6th trump or after it has ended?
Is Revelation 9:1 truly the same event as found in Revelation 20:1?
Why are they in different trumps?

The truth is the angel is not Jesus in either passage. The angel opens the pit in the 5th trump and returns to lock satan in the pit after the second coming is completed.
Where are you getting these lies? No Amillennial believes Jesus is an angel. That's the Mormons and/or JW's. Jesus is the Son of God, the second member of the Trinity, and God. He is NEVER an angel! This is the straw man to end all straw men. You set up these imaginary ideas, then knock them down. You don't use any proof, such as a quote from a book or website to show who believes this nonsense. I'll show you.l what you are doing!

Dispensationalists believe that all people must wear red shoes to assure they will leave in the rapture. Many men object to this, saying they will only wear white, black or brown shoes. Why would you care what colour shoes you wear? People need to wake up, and follow the Bible. That means wearing red shoes day & night, even at a pool or the beach. It's more important to wear the red shoes. You don't want to get left behind.

This is the nonsense you are writing about amillennials. No, dispensationalist do NOT believe you need to wear red shoes. I may disagree with their eschatology, but not because of nonsense like this. It even says the Bible says this, with no quote or reference. Because it is not in the Bible. None of what you have said accurately reflects anything Amillennial. Not one point! If you want to post lies, like Amillennials say Dispensationalists must wear red shoes for the rapture, or Amillennials believe Jesus is an angel, then put up some sources. That is NOT Amillennial doctrine at all. And you have done this with every single point. You make up something which Amillennials do NOT believe, and then show how it isn't in the Bible. Amillennials know the Bible a lot better than most Dispensationalists. I'll give you some sources for a Amillennial beliefs. Read them, come back and look at the lies you have posted!
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
*Millennial Maze Stanley Grenz
*A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger
*The Meaning of Millennialism: Four Views Ed by Robert G Clouse
*Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Dr. Stan Storms
*The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekma
*The Book of Revelation: Four Views Ed. Stanley N. Gundry
*Revelation: Commentary Beale
*10 Reasons Why the Rapture Must Be Left Behind by SD Morrison
*Raptureless: 3rd Ed by Dr Jonathan Welton

These are a few to get you started. You can read them, read what scholars have supported with the Bible. If you disagree, tell us what you disagree with, what page in which book, and support your side with Bible verses. Then we can discuss back verses that we believe the Bible says. Looking forward to having a proper discussion, including what 1 Thess 4:17 says in Greek.

No more made up nonsense which NO Amillennial believes!
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
5,020
1,268
113
23. Does Jesus descend from heaven to open the pit before the tribulation/6th trump or after it has ended?

This is another contradiction related to the above.


24. One resurrection of the dead or two?

Some of Amillennialism believe the resurrection of the unrighteous immediately follow the resurrection of the righteous at a general resurrection but sometimes admits there could be a second or more inbetween the two resurrections. That promotes two different resurrections separated by a short time period, yet Amillennialism usually denies there are two resurrections. Even a second between resurrections automatically proves there are two. Revelation 20 says there is over a thousand years between two resurrections which really ends any valid debate on the subject.

Another variant of Amillennialism believes that Revelation 20 does not show two resurrections despite the text declaring "the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were finished" proving a group of the dead did live again (a resurrection), and that a second group of the dead would live again (a resurrection) at a later time.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
23. Does Jesus descend from heaven to open the pit before the tribulation/6th trump or after it has ended?

This is another contradiction related to the above.


24. One resurrection of the dead or two?

Some of Amillennialism believe the resurrection of the unrighteous immediately follow the resurrection of the righteous at a general resurrection but sometimes admits there could be a second or more inbetween the two resurrections. That promotes two different resurrections separated by a short time period, yet Amillennialism usually denies there are two resurrections. Even a second between resurrections automatically proves there are two. Revelation 20 says there is over a thousand years between two resurrections which really ends any valid debate on the subject.

Another variant of Amillennialism believes that Revelation 20 does not show two resurrections despite the text declaring "the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were finished" proving a group of the dead did live again (a resurrection), and that a second group of the dead would live again (a resurrection) at a later time.
Another lie about what Amillennials believe. The first resurrection was Jesus rising from the dead, which he promised. The second resurrection is at the second coming. The first Resurrection for humans!

Remember, we don't believe in a literal millennium. "A" negates a word. When added to Millennium, it means NO millennium. So, every time you try to fit Amillennials into your twisted dispensationalist misinterpretations, you are forgetting we don't believe in a literal 1000 year reign. We believe Jesus us ruling and reigning since his resurrection. Almost 2000 years! Just because the dead in Christ rise first, doesn't make 2 resurrections. Because unbelievers are also dealt with at the Bema, or Judgment Seat of Christ.

I'm wish you would just explain what you believe, using Bible verses to support you opinions. Stop putting words in the mouths of Amillennials, which we do not believe. Stop making up lies!
 
Sep 14, 2019
1,336
50
48
Major doctrinal errors found in Amillennialism.


(these various issues have been presented in threads in various forums by people who believe in Amill. These may or may not be held by every individual of that doctrine)

If any one of these are true, then you can be assured that Amill is faulty and should be rejected as a theological doctrine.

Each person who believes in Amill is a good person with good intent regarding scriptural interpretation but Premill very much disagrees with their doctrine, their way of interpretation, and their exegesis of various scriptures. In this list you will see the biggest problems the Amill doctrine contains.


1. Time no longer theory

Rev_10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

The "time will stop existing" theory is based on misunderstanding some translations archaic wording. Here "time no longer" simply means there will no longer be a delay before certain events begin to occur not that time somehow actually stops.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Scripture never claims that time ends, in fact the eternity is never ending time with a new fruit on the tree of life every month (30 days of time).

Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

World here is AION which is an age or period of time. Usually it speaks of an everlasting period of time. Here the verse not only uses AION but adds "without end" to make clear that time never ends.

Other translations:


(ASV) and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created the heaven and the things that are therein, and the earth and the things that are therein, and the sea and the things that are therein, that there shall be delay no longer:

(BBE) And took his oath by him who is living for ever and ever, who made the heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there would be no more waiting:

(CEV) He made a promise in the name of God who lives forever and who created heaven, earth, the sea, and every living creature. The angel said, "You won't have to wait any longer.

(Darby) and swore by him that lives to the ages of ages, who created the heaven and the things that are in it, and the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be no longer delay;

(EMTV) and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it, the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there should be no more delay;

(ERV) The angel made a promise by the power of the one who lives forever and ever. He is the one who made the skies and all that is in them. He made the earth and all that is in it, and he made the sea and all that is in it. The angel said, "There will be no more waiting!

(ESV) and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay,

(GNB) and took a vow in the name of God, who lives forever and ever, who created heaven, earth, and the sea, and everything in them. The angel said, "There will be no more delay!

(GW) He swore an oath by the one who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and everything in it, the earth and everything in it, and the sea and everything in it. He said, "There will be no more delay.

(ISV) He swore an oath by the one who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and everything in it, the earth and everything in it, and the sea and everything in it: "There will be no more delay.

(LEB) and swore by the one who lives [forever and ever], who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, "There will be no more delay!

(TLV) and swore by the One who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay.

(TPT) and swore an oath by him who lives for an eternity of eternities, the Creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them: No more delay!

(WEB) and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there will no longer be delay,

(WEBA) and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there will no longer be delay,

(Williams) and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created the heavens and all that they contain, the earth and all that it contains, and the sea and all that it contains, that there should be no more delay,
Have you confessed you sin of choosing the knowledge of good and evil violating Genesis 2:17?
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
5,020
1,268
113
25. How much time inbetween the resurrection of the saved vs. unsaved?

An Amillennialist once posted, "The righteous are immediately followed by the wicked at the general resurrection. Again, this could all literally happen in a second (or seconds)."

Revelation 20:5 states "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" which negates the possibility of only a second or seconds separating the two resurrections.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
No, you couldn't. Reply if you want but I'm placing you on ignore.
What's your problem? Can't take someone who literally is Amill and exposes your lies about us?

So far all you have done is make me disgusted with your appalling ignorance. Your are convincing no one with your lies!
God hates people that lie! Be prepared to be cast out on Judgement Day, for this evil towards your brothers & sisters in Christ that you have slandered!

Why don't you discuss what you believe, supported by Scriptures, an then we can discuss what you believe and why, and what I believe and why?

Then you could stop lying about a topic you know nothing about!!