Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

User avatar
Mitzi
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:07 am
Location: Texas

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by Mitzi » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:47 pm

robbyyoung wrote:Happy Thanksgiving All!

Concerns involving the evil that is still in the world is an elementary understanding of the nature of man, apart from the past influences of evil spirits (Gen 8:21). Welcome to the depravity of man, no Devil necessary! Jesus and the Saints are currently ruling over the nations with a rod of iron! Welcome to the kingdom and 10,000 years from now we will still be here, let your imagination run wild on this reality.

God bless!
Hi Robby: sorry it took me so long to reply, I've been away from a computer for a while and it is normal for me to disappear for days or weeks from a computer. So that you know.

My question for you Robby is, how do you suppose the devil worked in the hearts of man before Christ? He is a spiritual entity operating in the spiritual unseen realm, lying to the minds of people, deceiving them into believing the lie/lies. He was (or may be still is) bound in order for the gospel to go forth but it's clear in The Revelation 20:7 that he is loosed for a short time after a thousand years(or an extended long period of time is what Steve teaches). How do you interpret that passage if you honestly believe he no longer operates in reality at all? OR are you a liberal Christian who sees God and satan as ideas rather than true entities? I'm just trying to understand what the foundation of your view is here. Are you talking about full-preterism?

I'm not trying to debate, I'm just seriously looking at the different viewpoints as the truth, how it really is, is all that really matters to me.

I too believe the Kingdom is now and has been since Christ's advent but I think the Kingdom is filling the whole earth not having filled it completely yet. That's rather an obvious observation for any person who's looking it would seem. I see a dark power operating in governments and in the minds and hearts of people that are in direct opposition to the things of Christ and because it has an obvious cohesive stated goal and is marked by the "culture of death" it must have a head who I believe is the spirit entity satan. I however believe once they have surrounded us and are ready to do us in, then fire will come down out of heaven, either spiritually or physically or both (I don't know) and destroy them. I don't believe the depravity of man is sufficient explanation for the cohesive form of evil we see mounting up against the Church today. So while I agree this is the millennial Kingdom, I also think that the mysterious silence of the Last Day events on the part of amillennialists should be dealt with and this is the view I'm seeing as the really only plausible explanation that I have found so far that satisfies my personal understanding, though I've learned not to be dogmatic about many things in the eschatological area.

God bless,
Mitzi

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by dwilkins » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:11 am

Mitzi wrote:
I too believe the Kingdom is now and has been since Christ's advent but I think the Kingdom is filling the whole earth not having filled it completely yet. That's rather an obvious observation for any person who's looking it would seem. I see a dark power operating in governments and in the minds and hearts of people that are in direct opposition to the things of Christ and because it has an obvious cohesive stated goal and is marked by the "culture of death" it must have a head who I believe is the spirit entity satan. I however believe once they have surrounded us and are ready to do us in, then fire will come down out of heaven, either spiritually or physically or both (I don't know) and destroy them. I don't believe the depravity of man is sufficient explanation for the cohesive form of evil we see mounting up against the Church today. So while I agree this is the millennial Kingdom, I also think that the mysterious silence of the Last Day events on the part of amillennialists should be dealt with and this is the view I'm seeing as the really only plausible explanation that I have found so far that satisfies my personal understanding, though I've learned not to be dogmatic about many things in the eschatological area.

God bless,
Mitzi
I'm not trying to claim to be able to solve every mystery here, but there are a few points to be kept in mind. First, if the millennial kingdom has started per Rev. 20:4-6 per Amillennialism (that is, that the saints are reigning with Christ after having overcome the beast) then Daniel 7 is helpful in understanding the terms of that kingdom. There, after the beast is destroyed and the saints begin to reign, that reign lasts "forever, forever and ever" (Dan. 7:18, and the rest of the chapter). Second, the early church edited the Nicene Creed in 381 to add the line that the kingdom that would be established would be "forever" (quoting Dan. 7:18 by doing so). They did this to declare chiast interpretations of the 1,000 year reign of the saints to be heretical. In other words, the early church as reflected in the Nicene Creed didn't believe in a physical 1,000 year reign of the saints on earth that would end at some point. They recognized that the reign of the saints with Christ is "forever". Third, if we can accept that Peter considered himself to be in a 1,000 period of some kind in 2nd Peter 3, and that this period was about to end, but that it was ongoing before the defeat of the beast, then I think there is a strong argument to be made that the 1,000 year detention of Satan and 1,000 year reign of the saints are two distinct periods. Once could have ended (as Full Preterists propose) in 70AD while the other extends indefinitely into the future as that kingdom fills the whole earth. Full Preterists have a serious problem in not being able to explain how the 1,000 year periods are precisely parallel, and they have no way to explain how the reign of the saints begins in full form AFTER the defeat of the beast at the day of the Lord. On the other hand, if you embrace splitting these periods then you essentially have Amillennialism without an end defined in scripture (which doesn't mean a literal infinity of human existence on earth, just that scripture doesn't reveal the termination of it).

Doug

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:48 am

Mitzi and Doug,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and Christ our Lord. I will try to be as succinct as possible regarding my "Full Preterist" position regarding the thousand year reign and wickedness in the world. Simply, I believe what our dear brethren believed, in the 1st century, concerning the last days events, their timing and expectations based on the words of Jesus himself and the Apostles. If inspiration means anything, NOT ONE New Testament Prophet believed or taught anything eschatological outside their generation, the 1st century.

IMHO, to say or hint to the possibility that Jesus and the Apostles were mistaken on the timing and expectation concerning their direct revelation from God IS TO BE REJECTED outright. Need I go into any further explanation regarding this? So then, this leaves us with the NATURE of how these events transpired, not the timing, leading us into the post 70 A.D. reality. This is why I am a Full Preterist, leaving no room for inspiration to be questioned regarding the clear teaching and earnest expectation on the timing of all last days events.

The "thousand years" is a perfect example of the inerrancy of scripture, regarding the timing and expectation, given by Jesus himself. Let me explain.

1. The Revelation was given as (1) one prophesy, not many, (Rev 1:3, 22:18, 19) therefore…
2. All of it's content, to include the thousand years, were either past, present, or SOON TO COME, (Rev 1:19, 22:6, 7) therefore…
3. It is not the timing of these events that are in question, but the NATURE of how these events transpired almost 2000 years ago.

It really is that simple for me. Our 1st century brethren under went some horrific events, but they also were blessed to experience the promises made to them by their perseverance. Whether we know fully how these events transpired almost 2000 years ago is of little to know consequence. The point is, do we believe what inspired men of God said and wrote, which brings us full circle back to believing faith.

I believe we will one day probably get to an accurate account of how these things transpired. Scripture teaches these things already took place, now we are the citizens of that kingdom which has no end.

The "thousand years" is obviously symbolic and by no means is to be taken literally. But one thing is for sure, whatever its fulfillment was, it had a SOON TO TAKE PLACE PROMISE. I have some ideas as to what and how the thousand years transpired, but I'm not prepared to fully disclose it now. As far as wickedness in the world, I would have to repeat what scripture clearly teaches, Jer 17:9, Gen 8:21, and Rev 22:15. Sorry, evil spirits are not needed in order for mankind to be at it's worst!

God bless Mitzi and Doug, to God be the glory!

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by dwilkins » Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:01 pm

robbyyoung wrote:
The "thousand years" is obviously symbolic and by no means is to be taken literally. But one thing is for sure, whatever its fulfillment was, it had a SOON TO TAKE PLACE PROMISE. I have some ideas as to what and how the thousand years transpired, but I'm not prepared to fully disclose it now. As far as wickedness in the world, I would have to repeat what scripture clearly teaches, Jer 17:9, Gen 8:21, and Rev 22:15. Sorry, evil spirits are not needed in order for mankind to be at it's worst!

God bless Mitzi and Doug, to God be the glory!
My primary problem with your position is that you are not looking carefully at what Rev. 20 says about the reign of the saints.

Revelation 20:4 (ESV)
4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

It is clear in this passage that the saints who begin to reign are those who've been killed for not taking the mark of the Beast. Therefore, their reign has to start at least after the mark starts to be handed out. Earlier passages in Revelation are clear that this is in the last 3 1/2 years before the day of the Lord. Therefore, if you place the day of the Lord in 70AD then the reign of the saints couldn't have been earlier than 66AD. But, Daniel 7 is also critical. It is a parallel passage to Rev. 20 and says that at the time of the destruction of the Beast the saints begin to reign. It describes this reign as "forever, forever and ever". If you have the destruction of the Beast in 70AD then you have the beginning of the saints' reign at that point. This is practically very similar to Amillennialism if you back up the initiation from 30AD to 70AD and then accept what Daniel says about that period not ending. You could get there by allowing that the initiation of the unending period predicted by the prophecy had to happen by 70AD, though there would be no conclusion to that kingdom.

Doug

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:26 pm

dwilkins wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:
The "thousand years" is obviously symbolic and by no means is to be taken literally. But one thing is for sure, whatever its fulfillment was, it had a SOON TO TAKE PLACE PROMISE. I have some ideas as to what and how the thousand years transpired, but I'm not prepared to fully disclose it now. As far as wickedness in the world, I would have to repeat what scripture clearly teaches, Jer 17:9, Gen 8:21, and Rev 22:15. Sorry, evil spirits are not needed in order for mankind to be at it's worst!

God bless Mitzi and Doug, to God be the glory!
My primary problem with your position is that you are not looking carefully at what Rev. 20 says about the reign of the saints.

Revelation 20:4 (ESV)
4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

It is clear in this passage that the saints who begin to reign are those who've been killed for not taking the mark of the Beast. Therefore, their reign has to start at least after the mark starts to be handed out. Earlier passages in Revelation are clear that this is in the last 3 1/2 years before the day of the Lord. Therefore, if you place the day of the Lord in 70AD then the reign of the saints couldn't have been earlier than 66AD. But, Daniel 7 is also critical. It is a parallel passage to Rev. 20 and says that at the time of the destruction of the Beast the saints begin to reign. It describes this reign as "forever, forever and ever". If you have the destruction of the Beast in 70AD then you have the beginning of the saints' reign at that point. This is practically very similar to Amillennialism if you back up the initiation from 30AD to 70AD and then accept what Daniel says about that period not ending. You could get there by allowing that the initiation of the unending period predicted by the prophecy had to happen by 70AD, though there would be no conclusion to that kingdom.

Doug
Doug,

1. The Great Tribulation of the Church was during the Neronic Persecution starting in the summer of 64 A.D. to the summer 66 A.D.
2. What happened next was the so-called "Rapture" of 1 Thess. 4. (very little believers were left alive at this point)
3. Then the Wrath of God was poured out on apostate Israel from 66 A.D. to 70 A.D. (using the Roman Army)

Revelations, as you know, was purposefully communicated to believers in the 1st century in signs and symbols. We struggle in it's interpretation but THEY didn't have this problem. Over the years we let our wildest imaginations get the best of us and continue to do so, but the first step is to recognize the time statements and place these events where they belong, as history, so that we can move forward.

When the wrath of God was poured out during this time, all 1st century believers were ruling the nations or diaspora with Christ with a rod of iron and they bowed at their feet just like Revelation said, Rev 2:26,27; 3:9.

Remember, the Parousia is an extended presence, not a one-day event. There is no conflict with Daniels prophecy, but again, you cannot isolate passages in the revelation and take them out of the inspired time frame of that generation. There is no way exegetically you can justify it. Every last bit of revelations, the Olivet Discourse and O.T. prophecies were fulfilled on-time just like Jesus outlined. We must maintain the integrity of the time statements and start discussing the nature of these events as we move forward into the future.

Everything can and will fit in the time frame given. The 1st century believers sure believed and understood the message.

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by dwilkins » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:30 pm

robbyyoung wrote:
Doug,

1. The Great Tribulation of the Church was during the Neronic Persecution starting in the summer of 64 A.D. to the summer 66 A.D.
2. What happened next was the so-called "Rapture" of 1 Thess. 4. (very little believers were left alive at this point)
3. Then the Wrath of God was poured out on apostate Israel from 66 A.D. to 70 A.D. (using the Roman Army)

Revelations, as you know, was purposefully communicated to believers in the 1st century in signs and symbols. We struggle in it's interpretation but THEY didn't have this problem. Over the years we let our wildest imaginations get the best of us and continue to do so, but the first step is to recognize the time statements and place these events where they belong, as history, so that we can move forward.

When the wrath of God was poured out during this time, all 1st century believers were ruling the nations or diaspora with Christ with a rod of iron and they bowed at their feet just like Revelation said, Rev 2:26,27; 3:9.

Remember, the Parousia is an extended presence, not a one-day event. There is no conflict with Daniels prophecy, but again, you cannot isolate passages in the revelation and take them out of the inspired time frame of that generation. There is no way exegetically you can justify it. Every last bit of revelations, the Olivet Discourse and O.T. prophecies were fulfilled on-time just like Jesus outlined. We must maintain the integrity of the time statements and start discussing the nature of these events as we move forward into the future.

Everything can and will fit in the time frame given. The 1st century believers sure believed and understood the message.
None of that addresses my point. In your paradigm you have the resurrection of saints who were killed for not taking the mark of the beast happening up to 36 years before the mark of the beast began. That makes no sense. I understand that you have a governing rule (everything must have been done by the end of 70AD) that requires you to shoe horn all of these events into but it's causing you to fail to see what the text says about the actual events. The least you can do is to tell me what you think is going on in Rev. 20:4 and when it happened.

Doug

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by robbyyoung » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:11 pm

dwilkins wrote: None of that addresses my point. In your paradigm you have the resurrection of saints who were killed for not taking the mark of the beast happening up to 36 years before the mark of the beast began. That makes no sense. I understand that you have a governing rule (everything must have been done by the end of 70AD) that requires you to shoe horn all of these events into but it's causing you to fail to see what the text says about the actual events. The least you can do is to tell me what you think is going on in Rev. 20:4 and when it happened.

Doug
Rev 1:19 informs us that John will be writing of things “hereafter”, therefore Rev 2 & 3 disclosed the things that “are”, i.e. the seven churches and Rev 4:1 begins the “hereafter” which was future to them and to take place very soon! And what was on the horizon? The Great Tribulation upon the Church The Parousia/Raputure, and The Wrath of God upon Israel. We know the Neronic persecution began in 64 A.D. and ended in the summer of 66 A.D. I hold to the dating of Revelation to be at 62 A.D., therefore the church had ample warning against falling away, receiving the mark of the beast, etc.

Rev 20:4 characterizes the result of The Rapture in 66 A.D. after the Great Tribulation upon the Church, Rev 2:26,27; 3:9, 1 Cor 6:2,3.

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by dwilkins » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:11 pm

robbyyoung wrote:
Rev 20:4 characterizes the result of The Rapture in 66 A.D. after the Great Tribulation upon the Church, Rev 2:26,27; 3:9, 1 Cor 6:2,3.
This interpretation puts you outside of any Full Preterism that I've ever seen. It's certainly divergent from Preston or Stevens. The result is a 3 1/2 year millennium, because it can't start until 66AD and has to end in 70AD. Is this what you meant to say?

Doug

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by robbyyoung » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:27 pm

dwilkins wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:
Rev 20:4 characterizes the result of The Rapture in 66 A.D. after the Great Tribulation upon the Church, Rev 2:26,27; 3:9, 1 Cor 6:2,3.
This interpretation puts you outside of any Full Preterism that I've ever seen. It's certainly divergent from Preston or Stevens. The result is a 3 1/2 year millennium, because it can't start until 66AD and has to end in 70AD. Is this what you meant to say?

Doug
The thousand years is symbolic referring to the completeness of the era. It started during Christ's ministry and ended in 70 A.D. What I described is what was relevant to those receiving the message given around 62 A.D., when they would fulfill this prophecy.

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms

Post by dwilkins » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:17 pm

robbyyoung wrote:
dwilkins wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:
Rev 20:4 characterizes the result of The Rapture in 66 A.D. after the Great Tribulation upon the Church, Rev 2:26,27; 3:9, 1 Cor 6:2,3.
This interpretation puts you outside of any Full Preterism that I've ever seen. It's certainly divergent from Preston or Stevens. The result is a 3 1/2 year millennium, because it can't start until 66AD and has to end in 70AD. Is this what you meant to say?

Doug
The thousand years is symbolic referring to the completeness of the era. It started during Christ's ministry and ended in 70 A.D. What I described is what was relevant to those receiving the message given around 62 A.D., when they would fulfill this prophecy.
I'm confused at what you are saying. Rev. 20:4 describes the beginning of the thousand year reign of the saints. You said that 20:4 is in 66AD. There is no reign of the saints before this, so that mean the reign of the saints begins in 66AD. But, then, you said that it starts with Christ's ministry and ends in 66AD (or is it 70AD?). I need you to be clear in describing where you are coming from with this (though, to be fair, I think it will be impossible for you to do so because the primary incoherency of Full Preterism is how it defines the thousand year reign of the saints).

My proposal above is closer to Amillennialism, though with a different end game. I would suggest starting in 70AD instead of 30AD, and then honoring Daniel 7:18 which says that this kingdom era is "forever".

Doug

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”