I take issue with your assertion equating transubstantiation and premillenialism. One is almost flatly contradicted by Hebrews 9-10, as well as a few other passages (as well as defying all common sense. It is self-evident the host does not become flesh and the wine does not become blood. They maintain their own chemical identities.) The other is at worst an oversimplification of a still partly veiled topic.
As I examined amillenialism, I was struck by the hoops that amils take to explain the book of Revelation. I read Hendikson's More than Conquerors. The writer went to great pains to apply all of the tribulation to the past 2000 years of church history, which is at best a stretch. Everything is an allegory -- nothing means what it says. IT raises some VERY excellant points, but by no means is conclusive.
There are reasonable cases to be made either way: I remain premillenial, but have a respect for the other position. Should not some respect be accorded in our direction? Christians may disagree on doctrines -- how on earth is that a sign of immaturity?
There are problems inherent in this. Please think again about what you said. To be more specific, think about it from a Calvinistic standpoint.
I take issue with your assertion equating transubstantiation and premillenialism.
But I didn't really make such an assertion. That's important, I think.
One is almost flatly contradicted by Hebrews 9-10, as well as a few other passages (as well as defying all common sense. It is self-evident the host does not become flesh and the wine does not become blood. They maintain their own chemical identities.) The other is at worst an oversimplification of a still partly veiled topic.
BUT the premillennial position is EMPHATICALLY RULED OUT BY 2 PETER 3. And the curse against Jeconiah EMPHATICALLY RULES OUT THE PREMILLENNIAL POSITION.
Besides, it makes no SENSE to postulate that the Lord would want to live in a less-than-perfect world, one still marred by the presence of sin, for ANOTHER THOUSAND YEARS.
(Please don't be offended by my shouting. I just think it's necessary [grin again]. Please go back and re-think your first paragraph. Think like a Calvinist, brother.)
As I examined amillenialism, I was struck by the hoops that amils take to explain the book of Revelation. I read Hendikson's More than Conquerors. The writer went to great pains to apply all of the tribulation to the past 2000 years of church history, which is at best a stretch. Everything is an allegory -- nothing means what it says. IT raises some VERY excellant points, but by no means is conclusive.
With all due respect, brother, I say you are missing the forest for the trees.
What I mean is that you are making the standard premill mistake. Premills address every passage in the Bible EXCEPT FOR THE PASSAGES WHICH FUNCTION AS KEYS FOR UNLOCKING THE DOCTRINE OF THE MILLENNIUM.
I knew you were in eschatological trouble when you said you wanted to read a commentary on Revelations before you made up your mind (grin again!). You are tackling the problem in a way which is almost certain to land you in greater confusion. You need to take a little more orderly approach. That means that you need to be a little more focused on the specific question as to what the thousand years are.
When you finally figure out what the thousand years are, the rest of the Book of Revelations will become delightful--not hermeneutically unsettling.
No kidding.
There are reasonable cases to be made either way: I remain premillenial, but have a respect for the other position.
I assure you that you will not feel this way when you fully notice what 2 Peter 3 is saying. You will discover to your shocked surprise that the premillennial position is monumentally unreasonable. But you have to be willing to notice what Peter is saying and you have to be willing to notice that it's clear.
Your elders won't help you with this. Nothing in your denominational background will help you. You are utterly dependent on the Spirit of Christ. And with all due respect, the implications of that haven't fully hit you yet. What I am saying is that you have approached the matter of millennial theology as an intellectual matter, assuming that you can get your arms around the whole thing at once.
But you are by no means competent to do that. You have to start with the things which the Spirit rather emphatically CONFRONTS you with. (That involves things like 2 Peter 3 and the Jeconiah curse.) If you don't submit to the Spirit in THESE matters, you're up a creek, brother.
Should not some respect be accorded in our direction? Christians may disagree on doctrines -- how on earth is that a sign of immaturity?
Ephesians 4 contains the answer. Our very disagreement is immaturity in the corporate sense. And I am just trying to help. (As they say, It's a thankless job, but somebody's got to do it.)
And why should either of us respect error?
Of course, we sometimes have to agree to disagree. But that often proves to be nothing more than a spiritually lazy cop-out. Charity becomes an instrument for blocking unity--and doing so in the name of unity. (It's a nasty little trick! It's Judas Iscariot stuff.)
Be not faithless, but believing.