-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are we in the Millennium?
- Thread starter mandym
- Start date
Bob Alkire
New Member
No!!!
Millennium is the 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth
1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Hebrews 12:26-27
Revelation 20:8-15
Revelation 21:1-8
None of these verses teach otherwise. Interesting!
humblethinker
Active Member
Intersting... 2 votes 'yes' so far. Would those 2 voters believe that the millennium is only 1000 years?
Is a literal 1000yr reign the only position held in church history?
Originally, the church was pre-mil. Then the Romanist church brought amil theology with it, only not the kind you'd recognize today -- they actually believed they were living in the literal 1000-year reign. That didn't work out too well, so eventually they shifted to teaching a figurative 1000-year reign.
How anyone could believe that the lion and lamb are lying down together, that Christ is ruling with an iron rod, etc, is beyond me.
Also, you'd have to believe that Revelation was written 60-63 AD, in order for the final week of Daniel to play out before the supposed beginning of the millennium (destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 AD). The problem is that Ephesians was written about that time, and Paul spoke about their love for Christ. In Revelation, Ephesus is condemned for having grown cold. So, to be amil, you have to believe that Revelation was written 60-63 AD, and that during that time, Ephesus had a drastic turn around that was so fast and extreme that two letters with extreme opposite views of Ephesus would be published and circulated almost immediately sequentially, which also means that Ephesus' change would have been so drastic and sudden that the new reputation would have circulated around the Roman world almost immediately.
How anyone could believe that the lion and lamb are lying down together, that Christ is ruling with an iron rod, etc, is beyond me.
Also, you'd have to believe that Revelation was written 60-63 AD, in order for the final week of Daniel to play out before the supposed beginning of the millennium (destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 AD). The problem is that Ephesians was written about that time, and Paul spoke about their love for Christ. In Revelation, Ephesus is condemned for having grown cold. So, to be amil, you have to believe that Revelation was written 60-63 AD, and that during that time, Ephesus had a drastic turn around that was so fast and extreme that two letters with extreme opposite views of Ephesus would be published and circulated almost immediately sequentially, which also means that Ephesus' change would have been so drastic and sudden that the new reputation would have circulated around the Roman world almost immediately.
Where in Scripture was the church premil? Are you confusing the post-apostolic church with the church we read about in the pages of the NT? My friend, there is a difference.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Did you know that a large volume of church history teaches that the Roman Church is the one and only true church and that the bishop of Rome is the sucessor to the earthly throne that once was held by the Apostle Peter of key's to the kingdom fame?
And did you know that covenant a-mils rely more on the historic teachings of the reformers (who got much of their theology from the catholic church fathers) and the WCF than the clear teaching of the Bible to explain their doctrines of covenant theology?
My question, what is the authoritative baseline for the christian faith, is it the historic documents of the reformed theologians or the Scriptures or a little bit of both? Six times the Apostle John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said that the promised kingdom will last 1000 years. No other time frame is given to my knowledge so faced with believing with some guy on the internet who thinks the kingdom is 2000+ years and counting and John the Apostle who writes it will last 1000 years, not to offend anyone but I go with John the Apostle.
It's interesting how you've woven Rome into this discussion to bolster your position. Why not the Scriptures?
Yes, but six times in Revelation 20, part of a genre that haven't settled yet.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Where in Scripture was the early church a-mil? Or post-mil?
thomas15
Well-Known Member
You are kidding, right?
Such question requires us to have clearly settled the matter of the millennium, which is only based on Revelation 20.
What gave you that impression?
Nope, its JUST the view held by the Apostles and by a solid majority of the early Church fathers!
held by most until time when Roman Catholic Church began to teach that
The RCC was the Kingdom of God upon this earth, so went to more A-Mil view!
Held by the Apostles? Where did you read that?
Last edited by a moderator:
But not dispensational post-trib rapture premillenial. The early (post apostolic) church was historical (covenantal) premill...
But other than that, I pretty much agree with you. We are NOT in the Millennium. The scriptures forgo any possibility of that, unless one is a universalist...
Agreed, and I hope I didn't give an impression otherwise. But I thought I would keep the extra stuff about the timing of the tribulation and dispensationalism out of the discussion, since the poll is focused solely on millennial positions.
If I read Scripture rightly, it teaches a pre-mil view. But that was not my argument.
Judaism, long before Christianity, held to an earthly kingdom before the end of the world. I would appeal to the so-called Fathers to make my case, except I don't consider them to be authorities, nor do I consider appeals to authority to be worthwhile. I do consider them, however, to be evidence of the understanding that is consistent since before the incarnation, held throughout Scripture, and continued by those closest to the apostles: premillennialism.
Contrarianism, on the other hand, seems to be your strong suit. Simply denying what is posited does not constitute a rational argument.
The Fathers held to all kinds of views that you would consider aberrant. Do you want me to give you a list?
You're assuming that a premil view is the only "right" way to read Scripture, yet Scripture is not clear on the matter. Wow!
Sir, I made it clear that I was not simply appealing to the Fathers. I was simply demonstrating that the documented view of Christianity, since before Christ and then up until Rome took over in the 300s, was premillennialism.
I have also demonstrated that amillennialism is untenable given at least the situation with Ephesus.
These are hardly comprehensive arguments, to be sure, nonetheless you seem to have missed them entirely, or you have chosen to ignore them. At any rate, you have demonstrated that having an engaging conversation with you is not something one should keep on his wish list.