The Thousand Years

[Arial]

 

[makesends]

At the risk of going off topic, here, (and, lol, that as the first response to your OP ), when I hear Voddie (who, btw, I love) speaking of literal vs symbolic, as though those are your only two options, I see that we of necessity think that way, and not that they ARE actually either symbolic or literal. They are to us, to whom Revelation was written. Just thought I'd mention that. Who knows just what God is 'thinking' when he commands the very words John writes.

Back on topic, though, I love how Voddie puts things. I am pretty clueless about the end times sequence. The more I hear, the more I find myself losing my earlier assumptions (that descend from Dispensationalism) and today I found myself agreeing with Voddie's description of Amillenialism. Let's just say that so far, it rings true and fits what Scripture does say, and doesn't even need to get fanciful to accomplish it. We LITERALLY are his people. He LITERALLY reigns NOW. We don't see all creation subsumed under his feet, but it is already a fact. Already, but not yet.

Yet, even with the Amil view, it does not try to arrange a sequence for the rest of the end times. But the whole of Eschatology both remains wide open, but finally starts to make some simple sense. It reminds me of what @Eleanor kept saying, (my words here), that the second coming was not in stages, not complicated, but done and done.

And, back off topic, again. It is curious to me, but amazing to watch, that God keeps using the wrong people for the right things, and keeps taking those whom we 'need' from us, just when it seems we need them most. I wish Voddie was still around, and RC Sproul (Sr.).

 

[Carbon]

At the risk of going off topic, here, (and, lol, that as the first response to your OP ), when I hear Voddie (who, btw, I love) speaking of literal vs symbolic, as though those are your only two options, I see that we of necessity think that way, and not that they ARE actually either symbolic or literal. They are to us, to whom Revelation was written. Just thought I'd mention that. Who knows just what God is 'thinking' when he commands the very words John writes.

Back on topic, though, I love how Voddie puts things. I am pretty clueless about the end times sequence. The more I hear, the more I find myself losing my earlier assumptions (that descend from Dispensationalism) and today I found myself agreeing with Voddie's description of Amillenialism. Let's just say that so far, it rings true and fits what Scripture does say, and doesn't even need to get fanciful to accomplish it. We LITERALLY are his people. He LITERALLY reigns NOW. We don't see all creation subsumed under his feet, but it is already a fact. Already, but not yet.

Yet, even with the Amil view, it does not try to arrange a sequence for the rest of the end times. But the whole of Eschatology both remains wide open, but finally starts to make some simple sense. It reminds me of what @Eleanor kept saying, (my words here), that the second coming was not in stages, not complicated, but done and done.

And, back off topic, again. It is curious to me, but amazing to watch, that God keeps using the wrong people for the right things, and keeps taking those whom we 'need' from us, just when it seems we need them most. I wish Voddie was still around, and RC Sproul (Sr.).

Hey brother, I would recommend "More Than Conquers," an interpretation of the book of Revelation by William Hendriksen.

In my opinion, it is probably the best commentary out there for Amillennialism on the book of Revelation.

 

[makesends]

Hey brother, I would recommend "More Than Conquers," an interpretation of the book of Revelation by William Hendriksen.

In my opinion, it is probably the best commentary out there for Amillennialism on the book of Revelation.

Thanks. I'll take a look. Do they have a large print version?


Later: Bought one. Thanks.

 

[Arial]

Thanks. I'll take a look. Do they have a large print version?


Later: Bought one. Thanks.

I haven't read that one but one I recommend for it thoroughness yet readability and its comparison with both the preterist and dispensational views; and the way it shows from Scripture how dispensationalism contradicts Scripture is: A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger.

 

[makesends]

I haven't read that one but one I recommend for it thoroughness yet readability and its comparison with both the preterist and dispensational views; and the way it shows from Scripture how dispensationalism contradicts Scripture is: A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger.

Yes. I bought that one. But have lost it in my stack of stuff, lol. And I refuse to buy it again!

 

[JesusFan]

Hey brother, I would recommend "More Than Conquers," an interpretation of the book of Revelation by William Hendriksen.

In my opinion, it is probably the best commentary out there for Amillennialism on the book of Revelation.

I like the Commentary by Robert Mounce, but that would be because he and I hold to Historical premil view

 

[Carbon]

I like the Commentary by Robert Mounce, but that would be because he and I hold to Historical premil view

I like Mounce also. I studied Greek with him. Same guy? Wait, that may be Bill Mounce? Been a while

 

[Carbon]

I haven't read that one but one I recommend for it thoroughness yet readability and its comparison with both the preterist and dispensational views; and the way it shows from Scripture how dispensationalism contradicts Scripture is: A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger.

Thats a good book also.

 

[JesusFan]

I like Mounce also. I studied Greek with him. Same guy? Wait, that may be Bill Mounce? Been a while

2 different guys, but both really sharp

 

[JesusFan]

Thats a good book also.

Another really good book on this issue would be

The Two Major Views. By Charles L. Feinberg.​