Featured Kingdom Theology

You made the claim. You must prove it. Apparently you can't, since all you can answer is to criticize me. So give me a quote that proves your point and I'll relent.

 

Same with the claim that "all" Christians were premillennialist's before the 3rd Century. Where is that proof...

 

It's because there is no Millennium. It's a Pharisee doctrine that does not come from scripture. No translation mentions it but most reject Jesus' gospel of the kingdom and believe the Pharisee version instead.

 

I never said "all Christians." And I gave proof from leading pastors of the area. Obviously you would not be convinced no matter what proof I gave, though. I have no idea what would convince you.

Here's a leading Baptist systematic theologian (whom you will probably reject) saying just what I said: "The first three centuries of the church were probably dominated by what we would today call premillennialism" (Millard Erickson, Christian Doctrine, 3rd ed., p. 1107). I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a historian or theologian who will disagree with this. Care to try?

But seriously, I really would like to know how you say the Council of Ephesus condemned premillennialism. I keep doing Internet searches and can't find out your source for that. What creed are you talking about? I simply can't find it on the Internet. A link would help.

I gave you a link for a scholarly article which you apparently ignored. The author concluded with, "My investigation of the canons of the early councils similarly has uncovered no condemnation of chiliasm by them" (p. 15 at: https://francisgumerlock.com/wp-con... and the Early Church Councils. Gumerlock.pdf

 

I never brought up the Council of Ephesus.
John, going to other dispensationalists who are openly looking to see their own doctrines in the early church is not an objective means of seeing what the early church believed. Is there primary source documents that declare a person had a millennial view and that Christ would come before that millennium? So far, I have seen no link to the primary source documents. Did I miss it?

 

Post #65. I have never come across a quote from a church father before Augustine who opposed chiliasm. Do you have a quote for me on that?

 

First, According to the Nicene Creed

………………. and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

You say instead the kingdom will only last 1000 years.

And condemned as heresy by the Council of Ephesus in 431 in two ways.

“In addition to its condemnation of Nestorianism, the council also condemned

Pelagianism, [2] and rejected premillennialism (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias,

Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius) in favor of Amillennialism (Clement of

Alexandria, Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo): "Augustine's

explanation became Church doctrine when it was adopted as the definitive

explanation of the millennium by the Council of Ephesus in 431."[35]

Secondly, “Canon 7 condemned any departure from the creed established by the First Council of Nicaea (325)” This affirmed Jesus “shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.” Thereby denouncing premillennialism and the doctrines leading up to and including Dispensationalism of the 1800s.

Here's something for you to chew on meanwhile. Amillennialism in the Early Church

 

Again, you misunderstand the premillennial position. Absolutely, the Kingdom of God has no end. The millennial kingdom is the throne of David, not the kingdom of God. They are clearly 2 different things theologically. So no, what you quoted from the Nicene Creed does not condemn premillennialism.

And I will read your link if you will read mine.

 

Sorry, that was 1689Dave. I'm an old guy. I get mixed up.

 

David's Throne IS God's throne.

“Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly.” 1 Kings 2:12 (KJV 1900)

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.” 1 Chronicles 29:23 (KJV 1900)

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Revelation 3:21 (KJV 1900)

“And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.” 1 Chronicles 28:5 (KJV 1900)

“Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.” 2 Chronicles 9:8 (KJV 1900)

“And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:” Revelation 22:1–3 (KJV 1900)

 

Well duh. Of course it's God's throne. Everything belongs to God. So what? That's not a rebuttal.

What you would need to rebut is proof that the kingdom of David is the same as what Jesus called "The kingdom of God/Heaven." But there is nothing from Jesus that says that.

 

Don't you know Peter preached about Jesus sitting on David's throne while David was still dead and buried? Before the resurrection at the end of the world? That is to say, NOW.

 

Of these quotes, the only one presenting a premillenial view is Justin Martyr talking to Trypho.
The rest require mental gymnastics to get to your position.

 

This view makes no sense without buying into dispensationalism hook line and sinker. It becomes a hoop jumping exercise to try make dispensationalism fit into the biblical narrative.

 

Um, no. You are confused about basic grammar. In Acts 2:30 the verb is an infinitive of purpose, which can be translated, "he would raise up Christ in order to sit on his throne." In other words, one purpose of the resurrection as stated by Peter is so that Christ could sit on his (David's) throne. But it was not a Greek present active infinitive, which would have indicated that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David. It was an aorist active infinitive, with the aoristic aspect in view, meaning that Peter with his quote was looking at the whole act of sitting without reference to time.

 

That's your opinion and I'm sure you are sticking to it. But it's not theology.

Frankly, this thread has been disappointing. Those opposed to premillennialism, including you, have mostly given opinion (strongly, of course) and invective (1689Dave). I much prefer actual theology, or if that is lacking, at least solid Bible study, not just lists of verses.

I previously said "I'm done," but now I am truly done, since I have a ton of grading to do. さようなら。Sayonara.

 

Your opinion, but not that of the theologians I've quoted. (And I could quote more.)

 

And doing a poor job of it according to you.

 

Try to grasp this.

“But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.” Luke 11:20 (KJV 1900)

“And when thy days [David] be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.” 2 Samuel 7:12 (KJV 1900)

Jesus reigns from David's throne now, before David's resurrection on the last day. But only the born again can see it by faith.

“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 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: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Ephesians 1:20–23 (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (KJV 1900)