Featured What does Amillennialism /Postmillenial offer compared to what premillenialism offers?

It would be much more impressive if you said you came to your position through solid, hours long Bible study.

 

I don't know if any preterists can make that claim though!

 

I didn't explain well enough, It wasn't a flip of the switch. It was almost a two year journey of talking to people, reading, ect. But watching the debates is what eased my confusion on the matter.

 

Your random one liners have not convinced me that you can make the claim that you did.

 

My impression of you and the other preterists here on the BB is that you don't really understand dispensationalism, and you certainly don't understand the allegorical hermeneutic that you embrace. That being the case, I don't see how you guys can intelligently reject literal interpretation, and therefore dispensationalism. And watching a debate certainly doesn't give that knowledge.

 

Now what if someone wrote a paper on preterism? How could it ever be well written and credible to you?

 

Doesn't Tcass reject dispensationalism as well, or am I wrong?

 

It is not even just Dispy, as there are those holding to Covenant Theology here who also totally reject Preterism!

 

Partial yes, no way full blown views, as that is heresy!

 

I am still waiting to when in history the Second Coming and the bodily resurrection event was recorded as happening!

 

Hours??? YEARS!!!

PPreterism is an understanding developed from amil through continued study of the way OC prophecy is fulfilled in the NC Scriptures. Nothing to do with allegorical interpretation.

 

Yes, he is historic premil. But he rejects dispensationalism with an educated, thoughtful understanding of it, not willynilly without knowing what it is. I'm okay with that. Dispensationalism is not a fundamental of the faith.

 

Well you'll have to take it from me then. The glory of God is foundational in all theology, therefore it is foundational in Amillennialism and your point is moot.

I'm talking about the Dispensationalism I come across in Britain and it's all about. One of the reasons I left the church where I was saved was because the leaders invited some guys in to celebrate the Passover. But they all claim to be Dispys. You should set your own house in order before you come and lecture us Amils.

There's been a lot of that over the years. A lot of folk thought Napoleon might have been the AC. But do you agree with Henry Gratton Guinness who saw the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24) ending when General Allenby took Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks in 1917?

Sorry; I don't play that game. You set out your thoughts on your eschatology and I'll set out mine.

Just to stress one point though. I don't fall out over eschatology with anyone so long as he believes that Christ is coming again. I don't mind having a good old debate about it, but we are all brothers in Christ.

 

You see, you don't even know that you are doing allegorical interpretation. But you reject the literal meaning of 1000 years in Rev. 20--that is allegorical interpretation.

 

It's not; it's comparing Scripture with Scripture.

 

So, then, I'll assume you don't know any authors who make it foundational in amillennialism. You're in the eschatalogical dark about it.

And for the record, the glory of God is not foundational in all theology. There are various aberrant theologies, even among evangelicals, that do not make it foundational.

This paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with me or anything I've ever posted here on the BB.

Nope. Strongly disagree.

The question of the definition of "dispensation" is not basically eschatology, but of Greek semantics. The word is oikonomia, and it occurs in Scripture in a non-eschatalogical meaning. The word as it is used in Eph. 3:2 is precisely as we use it in the theology, but other usages are not eschatalogical at all.

Your post, "I don't play that game," means to me that you really don't know the Greek word and it's wider meaning. It also means to me that you have no standing to criticize dispensationalism.

 

Prove it.

And again, you yourself do not know what allegorical interpretation is if you think that. I really must do a thread on hermeneutics, because there is so much ignorance on the BB about it.

Allegorical interpretation does not simply mean looking at Scripture and making up an allegory. It means interpreting in a non-literal way, and it goes back to Origen (3rd century), who copied Philo, and Augustine later on, right through the Catholic Church (skipping the original reformers) up until the present day.

Look, folks, don't be embarrassed if you interpret non-literally. "Allegorical" is not an insult, it is an historical name for non-literal interpretation. I'm not attacking you if I say you interpret allegorically. If you interpret that way, embrace it and let's move on. Otherwise you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Here is the definition of oikonomia from the Friberg Anlex (accessed through BibleWorks): "literally, relating to the task of an oikonomos (steward) in household administration stewardship, management (LU 16.2); (2) figuratively; (a) of the apostolic office in God's redemptive work task, responsibility, trusteeship (CO 1.25 ); (b) of God's arrangements for mankind's redemption plan, arrangement, purpose (EP 3.9); 1T 1.4 may mean (divine) training, but (divine) plan is also possible."

Here are the seven times it is used in the NT. Now study, people.

Lu 16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
Lu 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
Lu 16:4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation [of the gospel] is committed unto me.
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

 

I've done it several times on the B.B. It's looking at places where 'one thousand' comes up and looking to see if it is usually interpreted literally; it isn't. I can quote the texts again if you really want.

If you think that not interpreting a word with wooden literalism is allegory, then you yourself have not the faintest idea what the word means.

 

If interpreting in a non-literal way is allegory, then the Lord Jesus was guilty of it several times, and the Pharisees and others were not to blame for misunderstanding Him (John 2:19-21; John 3:3-4) and the Roman Catholics are right about Transubstantiation because they interpret John 6:53ff and Matthew 26:26 etc. literally.