Featured Historic(Chialist) pre-mill view?

Looks like we have something in common SG... I also have been through all views and am also coming from the amil position and looking in depth at the 1st century church and what the message to them was and how it relates to us 2,000 years removed... If you want to see where I'm going PM me you may be interested too... You never know!... Stayed tuned... Brother Glen

 

It might help if you were to google "apantesin"
You can find many commentators who are on board with the view that the rapture is not a catching away from ttribulation (especially beforehand), but a meeting in the air - and that it fits in a PostTrib scheme. If I'm not mistaken, it was Metzger's explanation that I first encountered.

Revelation 20:5 says specifically that the rest of the dead are not raised until the thousand years are over

 

All killed. From NASB, Isaiah 13:

Judgment on the Day of theLord
6 Wail, for the the Almighty.
7 Therefore all hands will fall limp,
And every man’s heart will melt.
8 They will be terrified,
Pains and anguish will take hold of them;
They will writhe like a woman in labor,
They will look at one another in astonishment,
Their faces aflame.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord is coming,
Cruel, with fury and burning anger,
To make the land a desolation;
And He will exterminate its sinners from it.

 

How were you, exterminated, as a sinner?

 

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Are those exterminated sinners?

 

And I stand by that statement. The fact is, those who embrace an A-millennial view, which is the position that stands in direct opposition to the Historic Pre-Millennial view...glory in the fact that there is so little said concerning the Pre-Millennial view.

If there were detailed teachings by Early Church Fathers...there would be a lot less A-millennial believers. But the fact is that the A-millennial view is touted as the view longest held by the Church, for the longest time.

Now go straighten them out, TCassidy, by showing them these detailed teachings of the Millennial Kingdom from antiquity.

I'm not the one making things up, lol. This thread shows what is made up. And I will just mention one:

That there is a distinction made between the Historic Pre-millenarian and the Dispensational Pre-Millenarian.

The fact is that in view concerning Chiliasm is the central issue of whether there would be a Millennium. As I said early on, within that group we would likely have found those who were Pre. Post, and mid-trib. But because antiquity is limited to those who actually had access to materials which would preserve their views, and that those in authority have historically sought to censor views opposing to theirs (which is something that is much more difficult in this day and age, though we still see those in authority trying to do this).

Because of that, understanding of the views held by Bible Students in Antiquity is limited.

We see a notable incident of opposition to the controlling authorities in Martin Luther. There is no reason to disavow this control prior to the Reformation, nor to nullify something that has always been seen, a majority view, and those who stand in opposition, or, compliment the majority view with...

...better understanding of the Word of God. Which is the Basis for all Doctrine.

And it's not.

I mentioned someone from antiquity you left off your list. His view can be seen as Pre-Tribulational.

Your quotes were not detailed teachings. Pretty sure I already said that. If you want to show how they are, feel free.

I did not misspeak, nor did I try to change the subject. My point was...a detailed address of the issues would have included a Scriptural presentation to validate the teaching itself. You know, kind of like my own posts tend to do? Secondly, I view the statements as general in their statement, which could be added to considerably to make them detailed statements and addresses of the topic in view.

But if someone does that, there is complaint about long posts. When someone breaks the posts up to make them easier to respond to point by point...there is complaint of too many posts.

I have piped unto you, TCassidy, and have mourned as well, but...you will not.

You can try to show that, but you will fail.

Go back to correcting grammar, TCassidy.

Why do you think I consider myself a Historic Premillenarian, TCassidy. And before you say anything, using a period was intentional.




God bless.

 

So which is it, new...or recreated?


God bless.

 

Not exactly.


Romans 9:7-8

King James Version (KJV)


7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Israel is made distinct from Abraham's other offspring. Israel is the one brought under the Covenant of Law. But...this does not nullify God's promise to Abraham. All families of the earth were to be blessed through him, and the Seed in view was Christ Himself. The Covenant of Law provided a means of relationship to both Jew and Gentile, and the eventual fulfillment of the promises are found in the establishing of the New Covenant, which might be seen using the terminology you use above, a "spin-off" from the preceding Covenants.

For example, when God made promise to Abraham concerning all families of the earth, that promise is fulfilled in the New Covenant.

When God made promise through Isaiah's Prophecy (that Christ would die for us [Isaiah 53], that He would be made a Covenant unto the Gentiles Isaiah 42]) it is fulfilled in the New Covenant.

I take the basic view that the New Covenant is progressively revealed to men throughout the course of Redemptive History as recorded in Scripture, beginning with Genesis 3:15.

What about the new heavens and earth? Will there not be a new heavens and earth created in which that abode Christ is preparing for us is going to be co-joined?

This will be the eventual complete fulfillment to that promise of an heavenly country. I view it as separate from Heaven, to which the Saints will have access to. New Jerusalem is patterned in the earthly Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of New Jerusalem will be those of faith throughout History.

But all of these promises fulfilled are consistent throughout Redemptive History as recorded in Scripture, the only difference being how they are fulfilled according to the Age in view. In the Old Testament, the "Land" and "Rest" was a physical country. In the Millennial Kingdom the Land and Rest is a true Theocracy (which was given Israel in physical terms which she rejected, clamoring for a King of their own, and falling into idolatry). In the Eternal State it is complete, both our King and our country being that which God has promised from the beginning.

While I agree "The Church vs. Israel" is a false dichotomy, lol, the clear distinction between the Nation Israel (the People of God of the Old Testament in physical terms) and the Church (the People of God in this Age) is not a false dichotomy, Paul spends quite a bit of time making it clear that Israel is not the Church. This is evident in Jew and Greek/Gentile now being one man, rather than the separation we see when Israel was under the (Covenant of) Law.

This is the reason why Paul makes it a point to show that the Law did not nullify God's promises, nor do we see those under Law excluded from being deemed righteous through faith. But the Law did not intend to deem men righteous from an eternal perspective, as we see it is in Christ.

We would have to conclude that everyone under Law was excluded from the promises if take a general view which improperly imposes the possibility of receiving the promises by keeping the Covenant of Law (from an eternal perspective). Quite the opposite is true, the promises of God were maintained despite the fact that they did not keep the Covenant. Moses was under the Law, sinned against God, and was restricted from entering into the physical Promise, but, Moses was also a man of great faith and not restricted from entering into the Promised Land and Rest which was not physical (though he awaited perfection to do this).

There is no "Church versus Israel" to be found in Scripture. The distinction is, using your terminology, "Israel versus the World (Gentiles)" under the Covenant of Law, and the Church versus the World under the New Covenant.

There is, however, an Israel as opposed to the Church between the two Dispensations. Those of faith of Israel, and those of faith of the Gentiles, are made one new man, a man that did not exist prior to the Church being established on Pentecost. This is the result of the Promise of God, the eventual fulfillment of every promise given men in regards to Redemption throughout recorded Redemptive History. The promise of God in the Garden is fulfilled in Christ, Who is the Covenant relationship, the True Vine, and the foundation of the Promises of God.


God bless.

 

There is the man-made notion that Historic Pre-Millennialism must demand a position on the timing of the Rapture. What is ironic is that while many A-millennial believers can scoff at the Pre-Trib Rapture as a "new" doctrinal position, they cannot look at their adoption of modern Systems of Theology making claims as being "new."

The Historic Premillennial position has one primary element, it distinguishes those who believe in a Millennial Kingdom, and believe that Christ will return prior to that Millennium. Debates concerning the specifics are irrelevant, despite modern terms and the assertions of "new" positions.

This would not be a debate if there were detailed teachings in antiquity one could produce to silence either group. While we can root through the dust of History and find statements which compliment whatever view we have adopted, we are not going to find decisive and detailed teachings which end the debates that have raged for centuries. If that were possible, most of us would be one or the other.

We, like the early Church Fathers, can build upon the teachings that precede us, but, the sole principle resource should be the Word of God. We can, for example, look at the huge population said to be destroyed in Revelation a little differently than the early Church could. It is not unreasonable to understand why the thought of millions of people dying might be thought to be hyperbole. The thought of humanity numbered in the millions, much less billions, might have for some been unrealistic.

The thought of events, as another example, impacting the entire earth might have also seemed unrealistic. This may have been, by some, to seem more like figurative speech.

So it is not unreasonable to think that there might be a difference between a people who relied on those who had available to them the Word of God to tell them what, first, it said, then secondly what it meant, and those who have not only the Word of God, but also resources and the opportunity to consider opposing views, and then to compare what is taught to that which is written.

Most of History shows that we are unique in having open access to the Word of God. It is said a fellow Priest made the comment to Martin Luther, "Can you imagine what would happen if the Word of God fell into the hands of the common plow-boy?" Well, we don't have to imagine it, it has happened ya'all.




God bless.

 

Please show the Historic distinction between Historic Pre-Millennialism and Dispensational Pre-Millennialism.

Going to be hard when the argument is that Dispensationalism is a "new" System of Theology.


God bless.

 

It is impossible to deem Historic Premillennials as non-dispensational for one primary reason: this Age and the Millennial Kingdom are two entirely different Dispensations, which is why Historic Premillennials are contrasted with Amillennials.

Did the establishment of the New Covenant end a specific Age or not?

Did the establishment of the New Covenant begin a New Age or not?

Does the Return of Christ begin a New Age...or not?


God bless.

 

The Land given to physical national Israel was physical, and was an Old Testament picture of the eventual fulfilled promise, just as manna was a physical picture of the True Bread, and animal sacrifice was a picture of Remission of sins which would come about when Christ offered Himself up.

We don't equate the picture of the promises of God with the realities that came about with the establishment of the New Covenant, nor do we nullify their purpose on a physical level. Men did receive temporary and temporal remission of sins when they offered up sacrifice, the greatest picture being the Day of Atonement. As a nation remission of sins was granted by being obedient to that ceremony, but it only pictured Christ dying to bring about the eventual fulfillment of this promise. Caiaphas prophesied that "...one man should die for the nation," though he did not understand the eternal reality of the prophecy.

Revelation, and the Epistles, and the Gospels, as well as Old Testament Prophecy provides an easy to understand Prophetic Timeline, which I believe shows that Christ will return, establish the Millennial Kingdom by gathering the faithful and destroying the unbelievers. No man who is not born again will enter into this Kingdom (though those who enter will have unbelieving offspring). At the end of the Millennial Kingdom there is shown a resurrection of the dead, which fulfills Old Testament Prophecy which was general and limited (as opposed to that revealed in the New Testament), which occurs after this current universe passes away. While I am not dogmatic on this issue, it is my belief that only unbelievers stand before the Great White Throne Judgment, Believers having been glorified either at death in the Millennial Kingdom, or instantaneously in concert with the passing away of the universe. All believers will inhabit the New heavens and earth, all unbelievers will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

It is my view that Scripture teaches a literal new heavens and earth, and that this is the Eternal State of believers. New Jerusalem is co-joined with the new heavens and earth, and is the eternal abode of believers.

While we might speculate as to why God would include this Era, it seems to me that what we cannot speculate about is that God keeps His promises, and has promised Israel this Kingdom. It is central to the teaching of Christ throughout the Gospels, and central to National Israel in Old Testament Prophecy.

This is why, after being told they would be Baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence (Acts 1:4-8), the disciples ask the Lord if He will "at this time" restore the Kingdom unto Israel," which takes into consideration both he promise of God to Israel in Prophecy, and how Israel understood that Prophecy. The Lord does not say "Well that has been cancelled, We're imposing Plan B instead," but tells them it is not for them to know the times or the season.

So the primary reason is that first God willed it, then promised, and will fulfill this time. It is in that Kingdom that prophecies such as long lifespans and peace, not to mention the Son of David sitting on a Throne which has no end, will be fulfilled.

Speculation might also include the thought that when men stand in judgment, all scenarios will have been covered, and no man will have excuse for rejecting God's will. They will not say "The Devil made me do it!" They will not say "You didn't tell me!" All men will be judged justly according to their response to God's revealed will, whether that will is the internal witness God gives to men, or direct revelation.


God bless.