Question for Premillennialist of Whatever Flavor: Amil Comments Welcome

[Binyawmene]

In case you are not familiar with the rule concerning accusations of a logical fallacy, here it is.

4.4. Identify and address only one logical fallacy at a time. To ensure fair and orderly debate, members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy at a time in an opponent's argument. Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and refuted or otherwise resolved. This prevents discussions from being overwhelmed by a cascade of accusations which, if addressed, would derail meaningful engagement. Fallacy accusations should be made in good faith, with evidence, careful attention to context, and a willingness to be corrected if mistaken.

Members who have been called out for a logical fallacy are expected to address that specific charge in good faith, either conceding the point or demonstrating that no fallacy occurred by clarifying their reasoning. Unless the charge is addressed, the member may not continue participating in that thread. Ignoring or dismissing the allegation without engagement undermines meaningful dialogue. That being said, his post may continue engaging other points, as long as it includes an acknowledgement and resolution of the fallacy accusation.

You have accused me of five logical fallacies in the first paragraph of your post and have forced me into dealing with them before I can go any a farther. Due to the fact that I am certain you were unaware of the rule (but now you are so any further misuse that rule will be duly noted) I will deal with them in separate posts and simply post the rule above each one since you will likely not be reading them in order of their posting; the last posting being the first in the alerts.

Cute. Your appeal to rule 4.4 misunderstands both my claim and the nature of fallacy identification. I identified one underlying error that manifests in several related ways. A non sequitur, a loaded assumption, a false dilemma, and a category mistake are not “separate accusations” but four expressions of the same structural problem in your question. It presupposes a criterion for meaningfulness in redemptive history that you never stated, never defended, and that Scripture does not require. Rule 4.4 prohibits shotgun‑accusing someone of unrelated fallacies; it does not prohibit identifying multiple symptoms of a single underlying logical defect. My critique was unified, not scattershot.

1. The structural problem in your question. You've frame the millennium "thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel" as something that must justify itself within the category of “the grand plan of redemption” in order to be meaningful without ever establishing that this is the correct evaluation. This framing asserts that the millennium to be evaluated only in terms of “redemption." That is the structural problem.

2. That structural problem produces the logical fallacies.

a). Non Sequitur: The question assumes that the millennium must serve a redemptive purpose to be meaningful. Which you did not offer up any Biblical method that redemption is the correct evaluation. You simply assumed it to be true as if that was the case. That conclusion does not logically follow from anything you've established, which is why I called it a non sequitur.

b). Loaded Question: Because the question is framed in terms of “the grand plan of redemption,” any direct answer implicitly concedes that “redemption” is the correct method for evaluating the millennium. That is a hidden assumption embedded in the wording of the question itself, which is what makes it a loaded question, regardless of your stated intent.

c). False Dilemma: By forcing the millennium into the category of redemption, the question implicitly creates two options: "Millennium has a redemptive purpose or it is pointless." Even if you intend to multiple categories, the wording of the question itself combines them into one evaluation which is redemption, “the grand plan of redemption.” That is why I said it functions as a false dilemma.

d). Category Mistake: “Redemption” is not the same category as “kingdom,” “covenant,” “land,” or “national restoration,” even though they are related in biblical theology. By demanding that the millennium justify itself specifically within “the grand plan of redemption,” your question conflates categories that Scripture often treats distinctly. Your question presupposes a criterion for the millennium that you neither defined nor biblically justified, and in doing so it confuses categories that should be kept analytically separate. That is the category mistake.

But my question is concerning your premil view that says Jesus must return and reign as an earthly King, in Jerusalem, for a thousand years before God's plan of redemption can be consummated. I am asking in what way does that fold seamlessly into furthering the consummation of God's plan of redemption? In what way is it progressive redemption? What redemptive qualities does it add to the plan? And I ask, legitimately, because since Gen 3:14-15, the plan of redemption as delivered in the Scripture, has always been seamlessly progressive. towards its goal.

Except, your explanation of the question in the OP actually reinforces the structural problem I identified in this post. You now explicitly frame the millennium as something that must advance, further, or add to “the consummation of God’s plan of redemption” in order to be theologically legitimate. But you still have not established that “redemptive contribution” is the correct or exclusive standard by which the millennium must be evaluated. You are assuming the very criterion that needs to be proven. That is the same structural defect I pointed out originally, now stated even more clearly. Basically, you are still treating the millennium as either (1) redemptively progressive or (2) theologically unnecessary. But Scripture never requires every stage of God’s plan to be Soteriologically additive. The millennium can be covenantal, judicial, doxological, and kingdom‑oriented without being a new redemptive mechanism. Your framing forces a dichotomy that Scripture does not impose to begin with.

At this stage we are just dealing with the logical fallacy accusations lodged against me according to rule 4.4 that I am required to acknowledge or prove no fallacies were commmitted, and not with the content of what you have said. When we get done with this, I will go back and do that.

Agreed. As for now, we are currently in a procedural dispute, not a biblical one. Because you placed yourself and appealed to a rule‑based, fallacy‑analysis mode (rule 4.4). And I will not address any else until this is resolved. To proceed forwards from rule 4.4 would only accuse me of changing the subject, dodging the fallacy charge, and moving to content before resolving the fallacy issue. After all, even yourself, issued a warning you will not proceed until the fallacy dispute is resolved.

 

[Arial]

Your appeal to rule 4.4 misunderstands both my claim and the nature of fallacy identification. I identified one underlying error that manifests in several related ways. A non sequitur, a loaded assumption, a false dilemma, and a category mistake are not “separate accusations” but four expressions of the same structural problem in your question. It presupposes a criterion for meaningfulness in redemptive history that you never stated, never defended, and that Scripture does not require. Rule 4.4 prohibits shotgun‑accusing someone of unrelated fallacies; it does not prohibit identifying multiple symptoms of a single underlying logical defect. My critique was unified, not scattershot.

I am not appealing to rule 4.4. I am obeying rule 4.4 and presenting the rule to you so you know what it is. But you statement above is incorrect. Each of the fallacies named has a distinct definition and test.
Non sequitur---a conclusion doesn't follow.
Loaded question---contains an embedded assumption.
False dilemma---limits options improperly.
Category mistake---confuses types of things.

One argument can have multiple fallacies, but each fallacy must be identified and defended individually. You don't get to bundle them and say, "It's all one thing, so I can list four."

That is precisely what the rule is trying to prevent. Stacking accusations to overwhelm instead of arguing carefully.

Agreed. As for now, we are currently in a procedural dispute, not a biblical one. Because you placed yourself and appealed to a rule‑based, fallacy‑analysis mode (rule 4.4). And I will not address any else until this is resolved.

You misread the rule. I am the one who was accused of committing logical fallacies so I am the one who must concede the fallacy or demonstrate that it is not a fallacy before I can proceed. And I have done so. Posts #12 &14. I showed nothing I said was a logical fallacy and why it wasn't. That is where you dispute my justification if you would like.

And since I did address them, I went ahead and dealt with the content of your post in separate posts. But before you respond to them you need to respond to my defense in 12 and 14. There is no need to get riled up. The rules are the rules and if other members have to abide by them, so do I.

 

[Josheb]

Cute. Your appeal to rule 4.4.....

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is the question asked going to be answered or not? Post #7 does not do so. Post 7 changes the question to, "But why does it take 1000 years to do restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel?" which is a strawman. Nobody is asking why it takes 1000 years or 29 years or 300,053 years. No matter how long the reign lasts, what purpose is served in the divine plan of redemption? Similarly, no one asked what God could have done. That entire section of Post 7 is a red herring. Even if we were to entertain the premise, "Scripture presents the millennium as the moment when Israel’s national cleansing, regathering, and renewal....." that would not wholly explain the purpose served by the thousand years.

• Salvation is not an endpoint.
• The creational and "national cleansing, regathering, and renewal" is not an endpoint.

No Christian was redeemed and were then told (or said to themselves) "Well, I'm redeemed now, there NOTHING more to be done," and scripture speaks forcefully against that premise.

The millennium is the redemptive-historical application of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants in the sphere of history, just as regeneration is the redemptive-personal application of Christ’s resurrection in the sphere of the individual.

Great. What purpose does it serve in God's great plan of redemption?

Can you see now how Post 7 begs the question, how it begs the question rather than answers it? The millennium is the application of redemptive history in God's plan of redemption. Yeah, great. For what purpose? .

Post 7 does not answer the question asked.

Post #11 is more of the same avoidance. That post also moves the goalposts, argues strawmen, asserts red herrings, and avoids answering the question asked. The question asked is NOT, “Why should I believe in a literal, geopolitical, Israel‑centered millennium if it doesn’t save anyone?” The question asked is much more straightforward: What purpose does the premillennial view of the thousand years serve in God's plan of redemption? The question is asked conceding a national, rather than an individual, redemption...... without assuming soteriological relevance. That may cause some confusion, but the simple fact of whole scripture is God's plan of redemption includes eradicating all dross wherever it exists. The entire attack on assumed assumptions is a red herring that does not answer the question asked. No matter what real or perceived biases may or may not exist in the inquiry, the question has to be answered correctly at some point. A sound answer would decisively address and quell any errors in the question.

Post 11 does not answer the question asked.

Neither does Post 21. A lot of time is spent on imagined fallacies, and the post still doesn't answer the question asked. An adept answer, and actual answer will further conversation op-relevantly and foment discussion providing all the opportunity to address every real and perceived error in reasoning.

By demanding that the millennium justify itself specifically within “the grand plan of redemption,” your question conflates categories that Scripture often treats distinctly.

No one said the millennium justified itself. The only one bringing the justification into the thread is you. @Arial has addressed the red herring AND pointed out the contradiction inherent within your own string of posts:

You have shifted the meaning to corporate-historical display and covenantal storyline completion. And that is a different category. You are calling something redemptive that does not actual redeem. To say it is corporal-historical and not individual-soteriological (though redemption is not only individual but also corporate and cosmic) removes the core meaning of "redemption". And it is redemption that I am asking about. You are describing something that does not justify; does not regenerate; does not defeat death; does not consummate salvation.

This thread was, presumably, entered and engaged freely. No coercion or force was used to compel participation. The participation doesn't answer the question asked so, therefore, the evidence of repeated avoidance and unnecessary defense and attack make it look like the thread was entered for the sole purpose of trolling the thread. If that is not the case then the solution is simple and readily available" Post an actual answer to the question asked that precludes as many of the real and/or perceived biases and fallacies and possible and then let the discussion of the answer provided run its course as the discussion moves forward.

The question asked is

What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

.

 

[Josheb]

.

The millennium can be covenantal, judicial, doxological, and kingdom‑oriented without being a new redemptive mechanism.

Great. Whatever it is, what is its purpose in the divine plan of redemption.

For example,

Q: What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?
A: The thousand years of Revelation 20's thousand years serves the purpose of providing a specific time with a fixed onset and fixed conclusion during which geopolitical nation-state Israel is brought to redemption as a nation, thereby also providing a means of accountability for and against national Israel on the day of judgment.

Or.....

Q: What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?
A: The thousand years of Revelation 20's thousand years serves the purpose of providing a specific time with a fixed onset and fixed that demonstrates national Israel's apostate existence given the fact the nations continue to rebel at the end of the specified period of time.

Or...

Q: What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?
A: Israel is not specifically mentioned in Revelation 20. The thousand-year reign mentioned in Revelation 20 is not, therefore, specific to national Israel. Any salience national Israel has during the thousand-year reign is best understood through Matthew 5:13-14.


It is not a question that is particularly difficult to answer from a premillennialist pov (Historic or Dispensational). If I can answer it then so, too, can the premillennialist. Give it a try. Hopefully, whatever the answer posted may be, it will foster further cogent conversation.


What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?


.

 

[Binyawmene]

I am not appealing to rule 4.4. I am obeying rule 4.4 and presenting the rule to you so you know what it is. But you statement above is incorrect. Each of the fallacies named has a distinct definition and test.
Non sequitur---a conclusion doesn't follow.
Loaded question---contains an embedded assumption.
False dilemma---limits options improperly.
Category mistake---confuses types of things.

One argument can have multiple fallacies, but each fallacy must be identified and defended individually. You don't get to bundle them and say, "It's all one thing, so I can list four."

That is precisely what the rule is trying to prevent. Stacking accusations to overwhelm instead of arguing carefully.

You misread the rule. I am the one who was accused of committing logical fallacies so I am the one who must concede the fallacy or demonstrate that it is not a fallacy before I can proceed. And I have done so. Posts #12 &14. I showed nothing I said was a logical fallacy and why it wasn't. That is where you dispute my justification if you would like.

And since I did address them, I went ahead and dealt with the content of your post in separate posts. But before you respond to them you need to respond to my defense in 12 and 14. There is no need to get riled up. The rules are the rules and if other members have to abide by them, so do I.

Your reply does not actually address the fallacy analysis I presented. Listing your version dictionary definitions of fallacies does not rebut the contextual reasons I gave for why your question commits them. My point was not that the fallacies are identical, but that they all arise from a single structural defect in your question: you presuppose that the millennium must justify itself within the category of “the grand plan of redemption,” without ever establishing that this is the correct evaluative criterion. That unstated assumption produces the non sequitur, loads the question, creates the false dilemma, and collapses distinct biblical categories. Rule 4.4 prohibits scattershot accusations of unrelated fallacies; it does not prohibit identifying multiple manifestations of one underlying error. You have not addressed that structural issue, nor have you defended the assumption your question embeds.

This isn't about interpreting Rule 4.4 or if it's applicational in real discussions. Unless one actually goes through it and experience it. But it does give Admins and Mods insight how that rule can apply in discussions and what to administer correction if needed. But this issue has not been resolved since:

1. Your reply does not address my argument. We should not tread fallacies as isolated vocabulary words. Fallacies are analytical tools which I've used on your OP question. I gave you the structure analysis and demonstrated that criterion is not justified. The structural produces multiple fallacy‑patterns.

2. You did not addressed the function, but only recited the labels. I gave you a contextual application of the fallacies. Fallacies are not identified by definitions alone; they are identified by how the argument functions in context.

⦁ How his question functions as a non sequitur
⦁ How it functions as a loaded question
⦁ How it functions as a false dilemma
⦁ How it functions as a category mistake

3. The Rule 4.4 forbids scattershot accusations of unrelated fallacies. I identified: one structural defect that manifests in multiple fallacy‑patterns. That is not “additional accusations.” That is explaining the consequences of a single underlying error from your question.

"Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and refuted or otherwise resolved."​

⦁ You did not acknowledge.
⦁ You did not refute.
⦁ This is still unresolved.

 

[Josheb]

Your reply does not actually address the fallacy analysis I presented. Listing your version dictionary definitions of fallacies does not rebut the contextual reasons I gave for why your question commits them. My point was not that the fallacies are identical, but that they all arise from a single structural defect in your question: you presuppose that the millennium must justify itself within the category of “the grand plan of redemption,” without ever establishing that this is the correct evaluative criterion. That unstated assumption produces the non sequitur, loads the question, creates the false dilemma, and collapses distinct biblical categories. Rule 4.4 prohibits scattershot accusations of unrelated fallacies; it does not prohibit identifying multiple manifestations of one underlying error. You have not addressed that structural issue, nor have you defended the assumption your question embeds.

This isn't about interpreting Rule 4.4 or if it's applicational in real discussions. Unless one actually goes through it and experience it. But it does give Admins and Mods insight how that rule can apply in discussions and what to administer correction if needed. But this issue has not been resolved since:

1. Your reply does not address my argument. We should not tread fallacies as isolated vocabulary words. Fallacies are analytical tools which I've used on your OP question. I gave you the structure analysis and demonstrated that criterion is not justified. The structural produces multiple fallacy‑patterns.

2. You did not addressed the function, but only recited the labels. I gave you a contextual application of the fallacies. Fallacies are not identified by definitions alone; they are identified by how the argument functions in context.

⦁ How his question functions as a non sequitur
⦁ How it functions as a loaded question
⦁ How it functions as a false dilemma
⦁ How it functions as a category mistake

3. The Rule 4.4 forbids scattershot accusations of unrelated fallacies. I identified: one structural defect that manifests in multiple fallacy‑patterns. That is not “additional accusations.” That is explaining the consequences of a single underlying error from your question.

"Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and refuted or otherwise resolved."​

⦁ You did not acknowledge.
⦁ You did not refute.
⦁ This is still unresolved.

What is the question to be answered?

 

[Arial]

Your reply does not actually address the fallacy analysis I presented. Listing your version dictionary definitions of fallacies does not rebut the contextual reasons I gave for why your question commits them. My point was not that the fallacies are identical, but that they all arise from a single structural defect in your question: you presuppose that the millennium must justify itself within the category of “the grand plan of redemption,” without ever establishing that this is the correct evaluative criterion. That unstated assumption produces the non sequitur, loads the question, creates the false dilemma, and collapses distinct biblical categories. Rule 4.4 prohibits scattershot accusations of unrelated fallacies; it does not prohibit identifying multiple manifestations of one underlying error. You have not addressed that structural issue, nor have you defended the assumption your question embeds.

This isn't about interpreting Rule 4.4 or if it's applicational in real discussions. Unless one actually goes through it and experience it. But it does give Admins and Mods insight how that rule can apply in discussions and what to administer correction if needed. But this issue has not been resolved since:

1. Your reply does not address my argument. We should not tread fallacies as isolated vocabulary words. Fallacies are analytical tools which I've used on your OP question. I gave you the structure analysis and demonstrated that criterion is not justified. The structural produces multiple fallacy‑patterns.

2. You did not addressed the function, but only recited the labels. I gave you a contextual application of the fallacies. Fallacies are not identified by definitions alone; they are identified by how the argument functions in context.

⦁ How his question functions as a non sequitur
⦁ How it functions as a loaded question
⦁ How it functions as a false dilemma
⦁ How it functions as a category mistake

3. The Rule 4.4 forbids scattershot accusations of unrelated fallacies. I identified: one structural defect that manifests in multiple fallacy‑patterns. That is not “additional accusations.” That is explaining the consequences of a single underlying error from your question.

"Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and rThefuted or otherwise resolved."​

⦁ You did not acknowledge.
⦁ You did not refute.
⦁ This is still unresolved.

This is not the place to discuss the fallacies. The place to do that is where I demonstrated why the "fallacies" I was accused of were not fallacies. That is where I explain why they are not fallacies. Your next stop should be post #12. After that post #14. Only after that can posts 17 and 19 where I discuss your assumptions 1 and 2 be handled correctly. I haven't commented on the rest of your post #11 yet and I won't until you have dealt with the logical fallacy issue of 12 and 14 so that you can catch up. The unavoidable delay in posts and responses can mess up the whole train of thought for both of us. The logical fallacy issue must be resolved and that is not a big deal. We just have to do it. If we can't come to an understanding between the two of us---if we reach an impasse iow where I simply show where my statements were not logical fallacies and you then show how they were and we get circular again--the rest of staff or some of staff can/will step in to mediate neutrally. So, let's just get it done so we can get back to the theological conversation. It has to be done as a response to my posts 12 and 14, point by point, because it is the only way it is coherent as to what anyone is talking about. Scattered among unrelated posts there is no way for anyone to mediate if that becomes necessary.

Thanks.

 

[Arial]

3. The Rule 4.4 forbids scattershot accusations of unrelated fallacies. I identified: one structural defect that manifests in multiple fallacy‑patterns. That is not “additional accusations.” That is explaining the consequences of a single underlying error from your question.

"Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and refuted or otherwise resolved."
⦁ You did not acknowledge.
⦁ You did not refute.
⦁ This is still unresolved.

That was done in posts 12 and 14! That is where you should be addressing the issue because that is where I laid out my defense.

 

[John Bauer]

I identified one underlying error that manifests in several related ways. … Rule 4.4 prohibits shotgun‑accusing someone of unrelated fallacies; it does not prohibit identifying multiple symptoms of a single underlying logical defect. My critique was unified, not scattershot.

MOD HAT: If the singular “structural problem” in her question is fallacious in nature, name that one specific fallacy. It is not permissible for you to find creative ways of expanding the problem with a web of related errors.​

 

[Arial]

MOD HAT: If the singular “structural problem” in her question is fallacious in nature, name that one specific fallacy. It is not permissible for you to find creative ways of expanding the problem with a web of related errors.​

He also needs to address my defense against his accusation of fallacies in the proper place and the proper way---by quoting my defenses Posts #12 &14 and countering them point by point with a valid argument. Rather than the way he does so in a completely separate post (posts 21 &25) with no reference point and simply repeating his first argument.

His post that named the fallacies is Post #11. I went ahead and dealt with the "timing fallacy" accuusation in post #31.

 

[Arial]

And here you are committing a Timing Fallacy. What you are doing is taking passages that describe final-state realities and assume they must happen only in the final state, then use that assumption to deny the millennium. That's circular reasoning at best. You're assuming the very thing you needs to prove. It's encouraged that not to ignore that very fact that prophetic fulfillment often unfolds in stages, not all at once:

⦁ The kingdom is “already” and “not yet”
⦁ Resurrection has “firstfruits” and “harvest”
⦁ Creation renewal has “inauguration” and “consummation”
⦁ Christ’s reign has “session” and “subjugation”
⦁ Salvation has “already saved” and “will be saved”

And it would be best not to combine all of these into one moment. That is not exegesis, it is compression. Now reread the loaded question: “Where does the NT clearly insert a separate phase where these covenant fulfillments happen before the final state?” Well, there is only one place that I can think of which is Revelations 20:1-10. And is the only place in Scripture that:

⦁ places Christ’s return in Revelation 19
⦁ before a 1,000‑year reign in Revelation 20
⦁ before the final judgment in Revelation 20:11–15
⦁ before the new creation in Revelation 21–22

This is the exact sequence which you claim does not exist.

1). Your claim that “resurrection is tied to the last day, not a preliminary phase” ignores the New Testament’s own sequencing. Revelation 20:4–6 explicitly describes a resurrection before the final judgment and before the new creation, which means the New Testament itself distinguishes a resurrection event prior to the final state. Even Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:23–24 lays out a three‑stage order: first Christ, then those who belong to him at his coming, and then the end. “Then the end” is not simultaneous with his coming. Paul separates them. Your position breaks down by what Paul and John keep distinct, assuming a single undifferentiated “last day” where the New Testament actually presents a sequence of events leading up to the final state.

2. It’s true that the full renewal of creation belongs to the final state, but Isaiah 65 clearly describes a partial renewal where long life, childbirth, sin, death, agriculture, and nations still exist. These realities that cannot belong to the new heavens and new earth of 2 Peter 3 or Revelation 21. This means Scripture itself distinguishes between a historical, preliminary curse‑reversal and the final, eternal curse‑removal. Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3 describe the consummation; Isaiah 65 describes an intermediate era of restored creation under Christ’s rule. The New Testament does not erase Isaiah 65, it places it before the final state, which is exactly what the millennium accounts for. Your objection places these two stages into one and then faults the millennium for preserving the distinction Scripture already makes.

3. Your argument that Christ’s subduing of the nations happens only in the present age and ends immediately at his return ignores the New Testament’s own sequence. Paul says Christ “must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet,” and that the last enemy destroyed is death (1 Cor 15:25–26). But Revelation 20 places the destruction of death after a 1,000‑year reign and after the final rebellion, not at the moment of his return. This means Christ’s reign of subjugation continues after his coming and before the final state, which is exactly what the millennium is. Your objection combines the “until” into the “end,” by erasing the very interval Paul and John both preserve.

"Timing fallacy" is not a standard fallacy (not a commonly recognized category in logic). That aside my argument actually is a textual and theological argument about sequence and that is not a fallacy. It is an argument from textual pattern and thematic consistency. I am not assuming timing, I am arguing for it---from the NT's stated timing markers. If you actually mean but did not clearly state is that I am collapsing distinct phases into one--that is not a fallacy it is a hermeneutical disagreement.

 

[Arial]

@Binyawmene
I deal with the accusation of a "timing fallacy" in post #31.

 

[Josheb]

MOD HAT: If the singular “structural problem” in her question is fallacious in nature, name that one specific fallacy. It is not permissible for you to find creative ways of expanding the problem with a web of related errors.​

He also needs to address my defense against his accusation of fallacies in the proper place and the proper way---by quoting my defenses Posts #12 &14 and countering them point by point with a valid argument. Rather than the way he does so in a completely separate post (posts 21 &25) with no reference point and simply repeating his first argument.

His post that named the fallacies is Post #11. I went ahead and dealt with the "timing fallacy" accuusation in post #31.

....and cease asserting a multitude of his own fallacies to avoid the question.

 

[JesusFan]

There's a great deal of dodging going on given the fact one single, solitary, fairly simple question was asked, and it was asked openly accommodating premillennialist perspectives.

The simplest answer would be that the OT prophets foretold a coming messianic Age upon this earth, and that is yet to happen

 

[Arial]

The simplest answer would be that the OT prophets foretold a coming messianic Age upon this earth, and that is yet to happen

That isn't what the question was asking.

Here is the question: What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

I marked the key element to be addressed in bold.

You might need to identify what the plan of redemption is.

 

[Arial]

But falsely accusing me of redefining “redemption" doesn't help your question. Regardless if you are aware of this or not. You are shrinking the biblical category of redemption to something far smaller than Scripture allows. You are committing a Reduction Fallacy by reducing “redemption” to only three things when the Biblical domain is far more vast.

Addressing accusation of committing a reduction fallacy.

The "reduction fallacy" charge fails because what I said is not a reduction---it's a contextual definition based on the question being asked. " Which is:

What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

I have been consistent in using "plan of redemption" to refer to God's saving work---dealing with sin, death, and the curse, and bringing about resurrection and new creation.

You have shifted categories mid-discussion and then accused me of reduction.

 

[Josheb]

The simplest answer would be that the OT prophets foretold a coming messianic Age upon this earth...

Prove it.

, and that is yet to happen

Or you might maybe perhaps be missing it.


Modern futurism teaches believers to look forward to something already existent. Believers are easy prey because they look around and perceive the world to be a mess and, therefore, Jesus is not controlling anything here on earth. Jesus must not be reigning. Then, on top of that fleshly point of view, they say the messianic kingdom must look like what modern futurism teaches, not what scripture actually states. The results are often idealistic.

Psalm 110:1 states Jesus will remain enthroned at God's right hand (as God's right hand) until the LORD defeats all the Lord's enemies. Jesus is not coming back before then. Psalm 110 then describes a series of events and conditions that occur while Jesus is seated in heaven, including events happening on the earth and in heaven.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

This verse is employed by Jesus and the New Testament writers at least ten times, perhaps more than any other single verse in the Old Testament. Jesus and the NT writers used that verse to define end-times expectations.

Psalm 110:2
The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”

God stretches forth His scepter from heaven, not from physically being on the earth.

Psalm 110:3-7
Your people will volunteer freely in the day of your power; in holy array, from the womb of the dawn, your youth are to you as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” The Lord is at Your right hand; he will shatter kings in the day of his wrath. he will judge among the nations, he will fill them with corpses, he will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; therefore, He will lift up His head.

ALL while enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God.

Jesus first quoted Ps. 110:1 when having a little Q&A with the Pharisees after he'd re-entered Jerusalem.

Matthew 22:41-46
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Mark 12 bears witness to the episode. Luke 20 reports the exchange as part of a larger conversation in which it was demonstrated the Pharisees' lack of understanding and courage was exposed. Their inability is understandable since Jews of that era did not believe God could/would become human and, if He did, then He most certainly couldn't die. They did believe a person would be resurrected, but the Messiah was going to kill the enemy, not be killed by the enemy - and they most definitely did not consider themselves the enemy. By the end of that day they were plotting Jesus' murder. After Jesus' death and resurrection, the Holy Spirit inspires and empowers Peter to use Psalm 110 at Pentecost to testify to the sovereignty of the resurrected Christ, the fulfillment of the so called "Davidic kingdom," indict the non-believing Jews in attendance, correct the Judaic eschatology, and foreshadow the correct view of end times.

Jesus stays enthroned in heaven. He comes back after all his enemies are defeated. And, as has been already posted, Peter explains that God's promise to seat someone on David's throne was about the resurrection. Jesus had conquered sin and death, ascended, enthroned, and is now ruling over all the heavens and the earth (see the evidence posted HERE). Peter confirms this.

The author of Hebrews uses Ps. 110:1 twice. First at the opening of his (her?) epistle to prove the superiority of Jesus, even over the angels (see verse 13). He employs the verse in chapter 10 when he informs the animal sacrifices have ceased having any saliency and why. The author actually, explicitly states what I said at the beginning of this exposition.

Hebrews 10:11-14
Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES ARE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

I do not know how it can be stated any clearer. Jesus will WAIT from the time of his sitting at God's right hand (and idiom indicating his divine authority and power) until his enemies are made a footstool (an idiom indicating defeat and submission). Jesus is not coming back until his enemies are defeated. In Paul's exposition on the resurrection to the Corinthians, he explicitly stated, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." He made that statement appealing to Psalm 110:1.

1 Corinthians 15:25-28
For he must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that [j]this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

All Christ's enemies will be defeated and the last enemy that will be defeated is death. This makes all premillennial viewpoints impossible, especially those interpreting Revelation 20 as the Davidic kingdom." Why? Because a lot of slaughter happens after the thousand years of Rev. 20!!!

Here's the real rub: Revelation parallels Psalm 110! The book of Revelation is simply a more detailed account. In his vision(s) John repeatedly sees Jesus enthroned in heaven and everything reported to happen, whether it occurs in heaven or on the earth, is commanded from heaven. Revelation does not explicitly state Jesus is physically on the earth until chapter 21. That is after the thousand years of Revelation 20. It is after all his enemies have been defeated, including death.

 

[Arial]

1. The structural problem in your question. You've frame the millennium "thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel" as something that must justify itself within the category of “the grand plan of redemption” in order to be meaningful without ever establishing that this is the correct evaluation. This framing asserts that the millennium to be evaluated only in terms of “redemption." That is the structural problem.

2. That structural problem produces the logical fallacies.

Since you won't do this the right way, laying your defense of your position in a way that makes the issue coherent, I guess I will have to do that work for you. Thanks.

For starters in the above statement, you abandon the fallacy argument and shifted to a framework objection. My question is not only legitimate but standard in theology. Calling a framework a "structural problem" does not demonstrate a fallacy, and it does not satisfy the requirement to identify and defend a single specific logical error. My question does not assert that the millennium must be evaluated only in terms of redemption, nor does it claim that anything outside that category is meaningless.

You say, "Ypu neve established that this is the correct evaluation" but that is not required for a question. Questions can operate within a framework and invite the other person to either answer within it or challenge it. The framing does not assert that the millennium is to be evaluated only in terms of "redemption". You are making an assumption and imposing it into the question. You are also introducing the assumption that the millennium shout not be evaluated within the plan of redemption.

To be continued.

 

[Arial]

{my question}is not a non sequitur because a "non sequitur is when a conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. But my question is a request for explanation, not an argument with a conclusion.

a). Non Sequitur: The question assumes that the millennium must serve a redemptive purpose to be meaningful. Which you did not offer up any Biblical method that redemption is the correct evaluation. You simply assumed it to be true as if that was the case. That conclusion does not logically follow from anything you've established, which is why I called it a non sequitur.

A non sequitur requires an argument in which a conclusion does not follow from its premises. My post contains no argument or conclusion—it is a question requesting explanation.

You are importing an assumption into the question and then treating it as a conclusion, but even if that assumption were present, that would not constitute a non sequitur. At most, it would be an alleged unstated assumption, which is a different category entirely. First, you incorrectly define non sequitur and then turn a question into an argument.

Therefore, the charge of non sequitur does not apply.

It is not a loaded question because a loaded question contains a hidden assumption that must be accepted to answer it. You are assuming I mean "If it doesn't contribute to individual salvation, it has no place in redemptive history." But that is not at all what I am assuming, and I never broached "individual salvation" but am asking about the divine plan of salvation. Your assumption is not embedded in my wording, so it is not a loaded question fallacy.

I simply ask what role the premillennial view plays in redemptive history.

b). Loaded Question: Because the question is framed in terms of “the grand plan of redemption,” any direct answer implicitly concedes that “redemption” is the correct method for evaluating the millennium. That is a hidden assumption embedded in the wording of the question itself, which is what makes it a loaded question, regardless of your stated intent.

A loaded question forces the respondent to accept a disputed premise so that any direct answer concedes that premise. I.e. "have you stopped---". My question does not force this concession. You answering does not concede that "redemption is the correct evaluative category. There are three ways in which you can answer. You can accept the framework, reject the framework. qualify the framework. If your statement that "a hidden assumption embedded in the wording of the question itself is what makes it a loaded question" were true, then any question framed within a theological category would be fallacious.

You can challenge the question in at least three ways (see above) therefore, it is not a loaded question.

False dilemma

A false dilemma forces only two options when more exist. You reframe my question as "Either it has a soteriological purpose, or it is pointless." That is your reconstruction, not my question. My question allows multiple categories of purpose (i.e. doxological, covenantal, judicial, cosmic, historical) therefore it is not a false dilemma

c). False Dilemma: By forcing the millennium into the category of redemption, the question implicitly creates two options: "Millennium has a redemptive purpose or it is pointless." Even if you intend to multiple categories, the wording of the question itself combines them into one evaluation which is redemption, “the grand plan of redemption.” That is why I said it functions as a false dilemma.

Framing my question into a category, "redemption", does not create two options. A "framework" is not a "dilemma". Questions do not function that way. You are importing a dilemma, not finding one. It is as though you are rephrasing my question into "Either it has a redemptive purpose or it is pointless." And then you call it a false dilemma.

A fallacy must be shown from my actual wording, not a rewritten version. I used a single category and that is not the same thing as forcing into only two choices.

Category Mistake
A category mistake confuses fundamentally different kinds of things. You claim I am reducing everything to soteriology. But my wording uses "grand plan of redemption". In biblical theology that includes more than individual salvation. It iis a broad category not a narrow one. It also includes kingdom, covenant, creation, judgment, restoration.

d). Category Mistake: “Redemption” is not the same category as “kingdom,” “covenant,” “land,” or “national restoration,” even though they are related in biblical theology. By demanding that the millennium justify itself specifically within “the grand plan of redemption,” your question conflates categories that Scripture often treats distinctly. Your question presupposes a criterion for the millennium that you neither defined nor biblically justified, and in doing so it confuses categories that should be kept analytically separate. That is the category mistake.

I did not confuse categories. I asked about their relationship. You are rejecting my framework, not proving a logical error.

All four of your accusations of logical fallacies reduce to the same thing "I disagree with your framework" not "You committed a fallacy." That distinction alone makes all the accusations invalid.