No one wants to tackle explaining that , huh? I'm not surprised.
I haven't kept up completely with the thread due to time constraints, but one thing I see that I find a little curious: There are a lot of loooonnnnggg posts by the amil camp, and in trying to read through them, I see inaccuracies in the quotation of the Premil positions, and the overall impression I'm getting is that the amils are trying to win the argument with a ton of verbage and writing, to basically wear down and frustrate the Premil until they just give up and quit arguing, at which time the amils will claim to have "won" the argument. It's all well and good that both sides cite other writings in support of their positions, but ultimately, those writings mean nothing, as they are just the opinions of men. The Bible is the authority, not other men.
The basic problem, as I see it, is one of interpretation. Using scripture to interpret scripture is good, but you have to rightly divide scripture to arrive at the correct interpretation, do you not? You cannot take one scripture and use it as the standard to judge all other scriptures by, you must take scripture as a whole, i.e. all the verses addressing a given subject,. and from them all arrive at the interpretation. At any point where your theory and scripture diverge, it is your theory that must change, rather than trying to find a way to interpret scripture to make it say what you want it to. This applies to Premils as well as amils. You also must understand that when Jesus, Paul, Peter or John make a statement or detail a portion of doctrine, it is not meant to be an exhaustive dissertation on that doctrinal point. 2 Peter 3 comes to mind. To take that statement, and build a whole doctrine around it is missing the fact that Peter was not trying to make a definitive doctrinal statement about the subject, he was referring to one aspect of that doctrine.
Another example is this: Jesus cried out on the cross "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken Me?", and thousands of sermons, books, and doctrinal dissertations have been made about how Christ was forsaken on the cross by the Father, in order for Christ to bear our punishment for sin. In reality, Jesus was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22, which is a prophecy concerning Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus wasn't experiencing separation from the Father at that point, He was telling the onlookers that they were seeing prophecy fulfilled before their very eyes! For those who would have recognized the reference, they could have believed on Jesus and been saved at that very moment. they had proof positive that He was the Son of God, right in front of them. But look at all the confusion that has resulted from that, up to and including teaching that Jesus died spiritually, that Jesus went to Hell for 3 days, etc.
The problem I have with the amil position overall is that it is not clear, that it forces some presuppositions on the reader in order to see the position. I want to spend more time researching it, and will as time allows, but for now, I have not seen anything that causes me to concede. I haven't even seen a really clear, cogent, or comprehensive detailing of the Premil position, either, and I think that's got to be a place to start. One thing I do not need is an amil telling me what the Premil position is, and vice-versa.
Absolutely, nbdy. And toward the end of the Psalm it SPECIFICALLY says, "He did NOT turn his face from Him." I always chuckle when I hear them say God turned from Jesus because He cannot tolerate sin.
They directly contradict the prophecy.
And they contradict the prophecies that say that the Messiah will reign on earth.
Let God be true and every man a liar.