At the time I was in a premill church that did not go to this extreme also....but there are others that have.More the fundamentalist types.
What has your church taught on postmill or amill teaching SW?
-
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!
Arrogance or Contending for the Truth?
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
- Status
At the time I was in a premill church that did not go to this extreme also....but there are others that have.More the fundamentalist types.
What has your church taught on postmill or amill teaching SW?
What kind of question is that? Why would a church who believes that their position is the Biblical one teach on a position that they believe is unbiblical.
Even the KJVO camp doesn't teach on modern versions except to call them out
as translations of the devil (and I am not KJVO). Its just an example.
DHK
here was the exchange you question;
On a scale of 1-10......the people have rated it a 9.0:thumbsup:
Why you say?......If his church has not spoken in this way about these other views I wanted to know what they have taught concerning these views:wavey:
That is a wonderful follow up question.
In a healthy church this is exactly what is done from time to time. Perhaps you have not experienced this:thumbs:
A Pastor or teacher who has studied properly should not shrink back from looking at all truth. As historically other views have been held by the majority the people should have some understanding on this.
Many premill pastors fear that when the people learn of these things [other eschatological positions] they will no longer be able to control them or deal with the questions that arise from such an open study, expecially non confessional churches which have no firm guideline to begin with...
here was the exchange you question;
On a scale of 1-10......the people have rated it a 9.0:thumbsup:
Why you say?......If his church has not spoken in this way about these other views I wanted to know what they have taught concerning these views:wavey:
That is a wonderful follow up question.
In a healthy church this is exactly what is done from time to time. Perhaps you have not experienced this:thumbs:
A Pastor or teacher who has studied properly should not shrink back from looking at all truth. As historically other views have been held by the majority the people should have some understanding on this.
Many premill pastors fear that when the people learn of these things [other eschatological positions] they will no longer be able to control them or deal with the questions that arise from such an open study, expecially non confessional churches which have no firm guideline to begin with...
There is a tendency, on this board, while involved in spirited discussion, to mistake confidence for arrogance.
I am confident concerning what I believe and why I believe it.
I would be arrogant to assume that anyone disagreeing with me is wrong.
But I am also confident that anyone disagreeing with the bible is wrong. (Not my interpretation of the bible, but what the bible clearly teaches without controversy.)
I am pushing 70 years of age, and spent the last 40+ years in vocational ministry including as a bible college professor and a seminary professor and 26 years as pastor of the same church. And I still learn new things every day. And when I learn that what I thought was true was in fact not true I change my position and stand just as confidently in my new position as I did in my old one.
I am confident concerning what I believe and why I believe it.
I would be arrogant to assume that anyone disagreeing with me is wrong.
But I am also confident that anyone disagreeing with the bible is wrong. (Not my interpretation of the bible, but what the bible clearly teaches without controversy.)
I am pushing 70 years of age, and spent the last 40+ years in vocational ministry including as a bible college professor and a seminary professor and 26 years as pastor of the same church. And I still learn new things every day. And when I learn that what I thought was true was in fact not true I change my position and stand just as confidently in my new position as I did in my old one.
What Docter Erdman's article supports is historic chilliasm (premillennialism). What it does not support is the dispensational system as developed by John Nelson Darby and popularized by Cyrus Scofield.
Historic Premillennialism dates back to the early second century AD. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all made incontestable references to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth.
But most Historic Premillennialists tend either toward a post-trib rapture or take no explicit position on the rapture or even that such an event will occur.
Latter day Historic Premillennialists would include John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Benjamin Wills Newton, George Eldon Ladd, Albert Mohler, and Clarence Bass, all Baptists, and Presbyterians Francis Schaeffer and Gordon Clark.
Don't mistake a defense of Historic Premillennialism with a defense of Dispensational Premillennialsim.
No, sometimes one has to take a couple steps back in order to go a step forward. That was posted simply for the Preterists and Amillennialists which abound here that do deny the Second Coming before the Millennial Kingdom, and in fact deny any such thing as a thousand year reign of our Lord.What Docter Erdman's article supports is historic chilliasm (premillennialism). What it does not support is the dispensational system as developed by John Nelson Darby and popularized by Cyrus Scofield.
Historic Premillennialism dates back to the early second century AD. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all made incontestable references to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth.
But most Historic Premillennialists tend either toward a post-trib rapture or take no explicit position on the rapture or even that such an event will occur.
Latter day Historic Premillennialists would include John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Benjamin Wills Newton, George Eldon Ladd, Albert Mohler, and Clarence Bass, all Baptists, and Presbyterians Francis Schaeffer and Gordon Clark.
Don't mistake a defense of Historic Premillennialism with a defense of Dispensational Premillennialsim.
Then set your heart on a Bible College or Seminary, not a local church. As a pastor I would not poison my people's minds with amillenialism or postmillennialism. What they need is the truth of God's Word.
Besides that, I expound the Scripture. I go through it book by book, passage by passage, verse by verse. You will never find amillennialism or postmillennialism with the simple exposition of the Bible. It is a man-made concoction.
I gave you an example from another discipline.
Would you teach your people the benefits of KJVOism?
Would you teach your people the benefits of becoming a Charismatic?
If the position is wrong, why allow it from the pulpit? Never!
Billy Graham puts his arm around the Catholic Bishop and says: "This man believes just like I do."
Would you allow a Catholic Bishop to preach from your pulpit if you are the pastor?
What Docter Erdman's article supports is historic chilliasm (premillennialism). What it does not support is the dispensational system as developed by John Nelson Darby and popularized by Cyrus Scofield.
Historic Premillennialism dates back to the early second century AD. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all made incontestable references to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth.
But most Historic Premillennialists tend either toward a post-trib rapture or take no explicit position on the rapture or even that such an event will occur.
Latter day Historic Premillennialists would include John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Benjamin Wills Newton, George Eldon Ladd, Albert Mohler, and Clarence Bass, all Baptists, and Presbyterians Francis Schaeffer and Gordon Clark.
Don't mistake a defense of Historic Premillennialism with a defense of Dispensational Premillennialsim.
I took a refresher course on historical theology taught by Dr. Sam Waldron two years ago. He did a good job of reviewing the major millennial views. I was in need of that because eschatology is a theological discipline that I have avoided for too long. I understand why the Reformers and Puritans spent comparatively little time on eschatology as opposed to other areas of theology. It was enough that they knew Christ would return. There were more pressing theological issues to content with; namely the break with Rome. It is my opinion that Darby took advantage of a gap in this area when he articulated dispensationalism (although not in a deceitful, manipulative way).
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
John Nelson Darby and Pre-trib-dispensationalism
That is false! Pre-trib-dispensationalism is a man made concoction and the man who concocted it was John Nelson Darby as I have shown numerous times on this BB. One must twist and contort Scripture in order to get that false doctrine. Darby claimed he got it out of Isaiah 32!
Jesus Christ is reigning now and that is what Scripture teaches.
Matthew 28:16-18, NASB
16. But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
18. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Ephesians 1:19-23
19. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20. Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21. Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
1 Peter 3:21, 22
21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22. Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
************************************************************************************************
That is false! Pre-trib-dispensationalism is a man made concoction and the man who concocted it was John Nelson Darby as I have shown numerous times on this BB. One must twist and contort Scripture in order to get that false doctrine. Darby claimed he got it out of Isaiah 32!
Jesus Christ is reigning now and that is what Scripture teaches.
Matthew 28:16-18, NASB
16. But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
18. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Ephesians 1:19-23
19. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20. Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21. Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
1 Peter 3:21, 22
21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22. Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
************************************************************************************************
Does he admit the Christ is coming before the Millennial Kingdom?
Or does he deny that fact?
That is the question.
convicted1
Guest
:thumbs::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
convicted1
Guest
Brother Reformed,
Your thread now....
Your thread now....
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting question, and one I'll answer truthfully. From the pulpit there is little to no teaching on other doctrines, other than to acknowledge that they exist. In Sunday School and Bible studies, however, other doctrines are examined topically. Obviously, they are examined and explained by one with an opposing viewpoint to them.
But, as has been mentioned, if a church believes something (KJVO, Cal/Arm, pre-mil/other, OSAS, etc), they aren't going to dwell and teach much on the opposing viewpoint. Rather, they're going to show their viewpoint and why they believe that way.
All we know for sure is Christ is coming again. The rest pre, post, a mil, pre trib post trib is pure conjecture. Hal Lindsey made millions off the pre trib, pre mil theory. Here it is 50 years later, and nothing happened on his time table.
convicted1
Guest
Harold Camping should be making another prediction any day now...
I have no problem discussing end times doctrine. What I do have a problem with is folks who make it an essential issue when it is not. In fact, no position can make a clear cut Biblical case.
Brother Reformed,
Your thread now....
Tis always the way. It did stay on track for a while.
I would not dismiss eschatology as though it is unnecessary to study. Yes. Christ is coming again. Amen! Maranatha! However our eschatological view effects other areas of our theology and practice. Like every other area of doctrine, it is important that we study it. The key is to keep our theology in balance.
I think I understand each of the models and the verses that back them up, the problem is there are verses to back all of them up. I am reformed also, and quite frankly, I cannot see how one lines up better than another. What do you think is the best match? I am going to guess not the premil, pretrib.
- Status