A Huge Problem for Premillennarians -- The Presence of Evil in the Millennial Age

Riddleblog ^ | May 28, 2008 | Kim Riddlebarger

[topcat54]

Because of the problem of evil and apostasy during the millennial age, premillennarians must attempt to deal with this problem by contending that the final judgment does not take place until after the thousand years have passed. In passages such as Matthew 25:31-46, where it is explicitly taught that the final judgment occurs when our Lord returns, premillennarians instead argue that there is a gap of one thousand years between our Lord’s return and the final judgment. But recall that premillennarians often insist that they are so, precisely because of the literal interpretation of the Scriptures and a reluctance to “spiritualize” prophetic portions of Scripture. So now we must ask our premillennial friends the obvious question, “where is the one thousand year gap between Christ’s return and the final judgment taught in the Scriptures?” It is not there. The gap must be inserted even though doing so violates the plain sense of the passage and the self-professed premillennial insistence upon a literal interpretation.

Therefore, the apparent strength of premillennialism is actually its biggest weakness. If premillennarians are correct about their reading of Revelation 20, the millennial age will be one in which Jesus rules upon the earth over people in resurrected and unresurrected bodies. Our Lord’s millennial rule will end with a massive Satanic deception of the nations and a revolt against Christ and his church after they have reigned upon the earth for a thousand years. If true, this millennial apostasy is tantamount to a second fall and not even resurrected and glorified saints are safe from the future wrath of Satan and the unbelieving nations. Although at first glance premillennarians may appear to have the plain sense of the passage on their side, the consequences of the premillennial interpretation cannot be easily dismissed.

[fishtank]

reformatted:

“Were you able to talk to Daniel yourself or are you presuming things from something you learn from someone else, or someone else’s material along the line.

Never the less how you learned that isn’t really that important, the case can be made that a writer in the Bible can use several types of figures of speech, and figures of thought,

I’m not the one to argue the text but I do know that the old Testament writers wrote differently then we do today and probably thought a little bit differently too, but never the less I do believe that God has preserve the message over the years even in what you might call a bad translation or even what I might call a bad translation but we need to keep in mind that all translation are still a work of man some may be more Godly then others,

but still if God wanted to use non Christians to give us a better translation then so be it. God could use Catholics to do that. Ok I’ve got way off on a tangent now, I’ll try to get back to Daniel, I kind of believe that God use a lot of prophecy through his prophets to give us a physical picture of things that happen during their life time or many generations after their life time.

Never the less I believe that the physical picture we are left with for that prophecy that might be fulfilled historically is for us to get an physical idea of a greater sphere or world that we can not really see, and that is the spiritual world.

The Premills like to see most every thing as future with world events that they can make movies and write books about, the postmills like to see most prophecy as being fulfilled during the first century or so in the world events back then and they have there books too but not as many and the amills are kind of like the postmills, they will recognize the world events of the postmills,

but they also won’t make a big deal about them, and in most cases won’t even bring them up. But they do talk alot about spiritual warfare that has already taken place and is taking place in each Christians life, and that is where they thing the message of most prophecy is about. I wouldn’t totally write off the postmills or amills but try to understand them more,

I thing you’re like many Christians they just pass along the most popular understanding of what ever theology is being talked about for that generation. That happens a lot here on FR whether your right, I’m right or john doe is right. the odds are that most of the views on FR are going to be the views that are in the majority views,

Fortunately, our generation, you and me, can go to the Internet and test those theologies of ours out on others, we can also kill incredible amount of time doing that to, having just said that this thread is getting old, I’ve had a long day, and I’m going to bed soon. I which I had more time to spend on FR on the Calvinist threads, but hey thats life, I don’t get paid for it. Well like I said I’m tired, take care and God bless. “

[fishtank]

“but still if God wanted to use non Christians to give us a better translation then so be it. God could use Catholics”

I was complaining about the footnotes in the NAB, not the text itself.

[ReformedBeckite]

The Kingdom is present in the Church, made manifest (visible) within the mass.

So lets see if I'm understanding you correctly, Our you saying, the Kingdom is present in the Church (those that our his elect, whether Catholic or Protestant, or something else) made manifest(visible) within the masses of Christians whether in a physical Church or someplace else with the emphasis on a group of Christians being define as the Church, with no physical denomination or affiliation other then a profession of faith in Christ.

Or are you defining mass as a gathering of Christians whether Catholic or Protestant to celebrate the Eucharist.

[John Leland 1789]

“The Premills like to see most every thing as future . . .”

* * * * * * *

I will suggest to you that Premills who are good students will see prophecy in THREE aspects: past, present, AND future; or immediate, intermediate (if not “present”) and future.

Example:

There are some sons to be born prophesied in Isaiah chapters 7 through 9. There had to be some kind of fulfillment in the day of the prophet himself, so that his own generation could witness the validity of his prophesy, and not have him stoned as a false prophet. All prophecies must have this “immediate” or past fulfillment.

But then the sons to be born had an “intermediate” fulfillment in the first coming of Jesus Christ, obviously (Isaiah ch. 9:14, etc., with Matthew 2 and Luke 2.)

Then a full reading of Isaiah chapter 9 reveals points about the Son (namely, Jesus Christ) that have not been fulfilled YET. The Reign of Christ — David's Throne — the government being upon His shoulder — etc. The fulfilling of these things COULD HAVE been exhausted soon after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension on certain conditions stated by His Apostles in Acts chapters 2 and 3, but the conditions were not met, and so the final fulfillment is in abeyance.

Isaiah chapter 9 (as this is our example), must then be exhausted YET in the FUTURE.

All prophecies have similar characteristics and conditions. To state that prophecy was all fulfilled in the past is incorrect. And to state that the only "fulfullment" is future is also incorrect. I suggest these principles for reading the books of Daniel, Revelation, Matthew chs. 24 & 25 (with Luke chs. 17 & 21). May I also suggest also that the modern English versions have done some serious damage to the ability of the average Bible reader's ability to cross-reference prophecy (that is from-book-to-book).

[ReformedBeckite]

I was complaining about the footnotes in the NAB, not the text itself.

Yeah I understand, I was thinking though of my past very brief involvement with the Authorized King James only people who would burn other Bibles because those supposedly bad translations don't use the same exact wording that the AKJV does which they believe is the inspired word of God word for word.

Pointing to what your getting at though I've got several study Bibles with commentary on each page, most of them I would rate as a 3 out of 5 star Bibles as far as the side notes go, and maybe one or two as 4 or 5 star Bibles. The Puritans prefer the Geneva Bible over the AKJV but eventually had to settle on using the AKJV because it was the only one they could get their hands on in the new country or old one. Fortunately we don't live in those days anymore.

[dangus]

The Kingdom is present among Christians, wherein any heart is subject to Christ. It is made manifest during the re-presentation of the Holy Sacrifice.

Unlike Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox, and even some Anglican masses, most Protestant services make no claim to re-present the Holy Sacrifice. (Even among some of these groups, the Holy Sacrifice may be counterfeited; for a case in point, consider WomynPriests.)

For an excellent resource to relate how the Kingdom, as described in considerable detail in Revelations, is manifested within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I’d recommend Scott Hahn’s “the Lamb’s Supper.”

[ReformedBeckite]

Ok I've got to admit I didn't go look at the book reviews, though I will admit I've got two of his books that I know of, never the less book reviews are like political rallies, we are going to route for those we perceive to stand up for our values or party, and sometimes we will do that even if we've got to hold our nose when we vote for them.

I'm an amill and you can guess from what I stated above, I like Riddlebarger. But let say it more convincingly, "I do like Riddlebarger, he is in my top 5 books on Amill, even though I will have to admit, I probably only got 5 books on the subject ;-)

At least most theologians smell better then politicians.

[fishtank]

To clarify:

I was reformatting Reformed Beckite’s paragraph. That was NOT my writing.

[fishtank]

Hello dangus.

To understand Calvary and Christ’s sacrifice, the book of Hebrews is crucial. I was raised RCC, but had to leave at about age 23 or 24, principally because of the Mass. The phrase “once for all”, as applied to the cross, occurs many times in Hebrews. Rather than amplify the importance of Jesus’ death on the cross, the Mass diminishes His once for all sacrifice. We therefore look to the Cross as a past event, with present and future benefit for those who believe and trust in Him.

[John Leland 1789]

Oh, I know.

I just thought I’d take the opportunity to throw a Bible study principle in to the mix.

Thanks.

[dangus]

Wow, Fishtank. I thought more of your understanding than to think you were still believing that old canard that Catholics believe that they are re-sacrificing Christ with every mass. I used “re-present” specifically to emphasize the point that there is only ONE Holy Sacrifice, separating “re” and “present” with that hyphen to avoid the confusion that I merely meant to metaphorically allude to something.

[fishtank]

Can I ask you a question?

What part of the Catholic church are you a part of?

I ask because I take the Council of Trent very seriously. So seriously that I went from a Novus Ordo at about age 20 to the SSPX, then from there to a Protestant church.

In other words, if Trent is correct, then the Mass is a sacrifice. I do disagree with Trent, which is why I left, respectfully.

The Council of Trent on the Mass

"Canons On The Sacrifice Of The Mass

Canon 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, [21] Christ did not institute the Apostles priests;[22] or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one;[23] or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema."

[dangus]

Your question seems to suppose that I might deny that the Catholic Mass is a sacrifice, which is odd, since I referred to it as “the Holy Sacrifice,” which is the “Kingdom of Heaven” made “manifest.”

What I said is that the sacrifice is not re-crucifying Christ over again. The sacrifice which it is, is the one, eternal sacrifice, which exists throughout time, and in every mass and every tabernacle in the world. It was completed in 30 AD, but it did not cease to exist at its completion, as temporal acts do.

If one asserts that the Holy Sacrifice was “once, and for all,” and it no longer existed after 30 AD, then what is the sacrifice of the lamb in Revelations? With what blood are people washed in?