Continuing the eschatology

Darby, typical of any scholar, is not always a simple read. And, few take the enormous amount of time to read, rather rely on what others report. IMO, this is perhaps some of what was behind Spurgeon’s remarks. He perhaps relied on what others reported. Do we all not face that same dilemma in modern news sources?

However, being able to say in a discussion,”Look, I have read .... first hand sources and this is what is presented,” is a mark of one who attends to scholarship.

 

Amen to Polycarp, but personally, I don't see anything specifically Premil about that. It seems to work perfectly well with Amil.

 

You're joking, right?
He left visibly 'while they watched' (Acts 1:9). He will return 'in like manner.' If words have any meaning, that means visibly.

 

I am not aware of an amil scheme which has the saints ruling with Jesus after the 2nd coming. That's a premil concept. In the eternal state we are not rulers.

 

I was wondering the same thing.

The only scheme in which the prophets would fit is premill.

Too often the ones who reject premillennialism are actually rejecting the LaHaye/Jenkins propaganda, not being understanding that their view is but a single scheme in which premillennialism can be considered.

Not all dispensation schemes are “Darby dispensation.”

Dispensations can be used merely as a tool to present a useable outline of Scripture. It is as using covenates, or archeological terms, a way of referring to periods of time.

 

Neither passage as cited says anything about a future millennium, intermediate between the present Gospel age & the NH&NE.

To answer the objection premils raise -

who are we going to reign over, if all the wicked are in hell?​

Jesus spoke about reigning:

Mat. 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”​

In his intro to his readers, John writes:

Rev. 1:4 ..... Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.​

We have the status of kings and priests to His God and Father now, as the redeemed people of God. No need to wait until a supposed future millennium.

And Clement is writing of the return of our Lord Jesus in glory for general resurrection & judgment, as Jesus stated:

John 5:28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. ​

He has in previous verses taught a first resurrection for those who hear his Word & believe -

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.
​

Notice Jesus said, "the hour is coming, and now is" so there is no question of him there referring to the future bodily resurrection, rather he contrasts conversion resurrection with bodily resurrection of the dead.

No, John, we need explicit statements about a future intermediate millennium, & those quotations from Polycarp & Clement won't do.

 

So you take the passage not just to be for believer assemblies, but for the ungodly political structures, also.

Doesn’t that seem a stretch considering Paul’s statement(s) concerning the character shown to world leaders?

 

Well said.

 

Here is an excellent scholarly article in the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) postulating the Apostle John as the originator of premilennialism:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/31/31-4/31-4-pp411-427_JETS.pdf

 

It matters little if someone explores conspiracy theories. Or even considers such as factual.

Even the chief ruler of the Jews prophecied concerning the death of Christ, and he was an unbeliever.

What is ultimately responsible behavior is examining all teaching (heard or read) through the Scriptures.

As Paul said, “21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.”

And again, Paul warns believers, “ 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.”

A wise believer does not chase after “every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

Not everyone is whom they claim to be, even on the B.B.

 

Wow, you sure can pick the heretics. Are you aware that this author, Steve Wohlberg, is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist cult?

 

Sorry, I don't find replacement theology in what you posted. But if by some chance Justin did hold to it, I disagree with that teaching.

 

How about taking on historic premil proper then?

 

I find the pre-trib position in the Bible, though I'm not as strong on it as on the premil position. Grammatical-historical interpretation always comes out with a pre-mil position. It was so in the first three centuries of Christianity until Origen (the first Christian to advocate allegorical interpretation), and it was so with my grandfather and college pres as I have related, and it was so with me. I did not read any books to come to the premil position except for the Bible. (I do admit my Dad's preaching helped me.) So I have no real need to prove a pre-1585 origin to the doctrine.

I don't suppose you paid any attention in one PM I wrote you about the nature of doctrinal progress. You see, beginning with the first Nicean Council and its dealing with Arianism, God the Holy Spirit has always lead theologians to help the churches through false doctrine at just the right times. Most recently, the doctrine of verbal inspiration was developed by men like Machen and Gaussen to counter liberalism. So I have no brief to find the antichrist and all of that before 1585. It simply doesn't matter to me. God lead my theological ancestors to premillenialism.

As for the Jesuit origin of futurism, I had never heard of it before you came on the BB, and I teach this stuff in college and seminary. So it's an extreme minority view. It's a non-issue to me, more so now that I find the primary advocate is a cultist. You can continue to believe the cultist if you want, or not--makes no difference to me. It's irrelevant to my beliefs.

 

There can be no doubt that the consistent view held by most within the Church, and among the Ecf, was the Historical PreMil view. That view ceased being the dominant position mainly thru efforts of the theologians Oregin/Augustine made popular allegorical and spiritualizing the prophetic elements of the bible