Replies

There are a lot of problems with Lindsey's theory, the most significant of which are the ones which rigorously prove that the Lord's return will not be premillennial, i.e., His return will not usher in a materialistic kingdom on earth prior to the eternal state itself.

What I am ultimately saying is that the figurative language in Revelation 20 cannot be read in the literal/materialistic way the premills use.

The problem is, the premills read the thousand years in Revelation 20 as literal/materialistic. What's the problem with that? The problem is that this reading presupposes that this "millennium," as we all call the era, is bracketed by and ultimately defined by two mass bodily resurrection episodes.

But we have too many other clear passages which say that there is only one mass resurrection of the physically dead in our future. It rigorously follows from this that the premills have misread the first of the two resurrections in Revelation 20. That, in turn, means that the premills have misunderstood the significance of the thousand years.

The position I believe is the correct one is the position which the Protestant Reformers taught, i.e., the amillennial position. We believe that the thousand years is figurative and refers to the gospel era itself. We believe that the Lord's next appeaarance on earth will occur on Judgment Day. It will be the end of the world, not the start of a materialistic millennium.

The Lord will destroy the heavens and the earth and start over with the New Heavens and the New Earth.