Amillenialism or Historic Premillenialism

Michael,

You asked the time of the rapture of the church? I knew this answer when I was twelve years old; how about you. 'But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of Heaven, but My Father only.' [Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:23; Luke 12:40; John 5:25]

I know a Reformed Bible scholar who may have an update on the Second Coming.

"Ray"

Ok. Well, I'd have to beg the question of do you think it happens before or after the tribulation period. In other words, do you believe that teh church will be raptured out before some period of specific judgment of 7 years.

Thanks
Michael

Michael,

Yes, I do believe our Lord will take His church to Heaven before the beginning of the Great Tribulation referred to in Matthew 24:1-44 especially vs. 21. None of the Great Tribulation judgments have begun at this point in time. They start in Revelation chapter six with the Seal, Trumpet, Vial judgments and others that you might find after chapter six.

"Ray"

I've had a problem with this pre, mid, post rapture and the milleneum question for years. I've read many writings espousing all of these views. Let it be understood, that I'm not a bible genius by any streach of the imagination!!
I do have great problems, though, with various renderings that take so much "education" and spiritualizing to understand.

If, as I've been taught, that each person (CHRISTIAN) is of the priesthood, I cannot fathom God giving me an instruction book that I'm expected to obey, that I can not grasp without more "enlightened preist's" explainations!

Basically the gist of this post is to proclaim that, barring any obvious or specific instructions included in the scripture, I'm going to believe the Word EXACTLY as it's written.

When I have a problem with a passage, I will either just wait until God reveals it to me, or just accept that it's something I don't need to understand right now. Yes, other's comments will be considered. But if I see no scriptual reason to allegorize a particular passage, then as far as I'm concerned it stands literal as written, the Phd's notwithstanding!

I DO NOT mean this to be a slam on any advanced education; it's great!! It just seems sometimes that SOME people get so educated that they become useless; they now think that they have to explain to God what He really meant.

Michael,

I would say basically I lean toward the Amill position though with probably a Post Mill edge to it but I see no place in the Bible a teaching of a Pre Trib rapture. Also most who are not Disp PreMill or Historic PreMill generaly do not believe in a literal 7 year tribulation. Some Historic Premills such as John Gill actually are in more agreement with Amills and Postmills on this issue though.

The Tribulation in Revelation is referred to as 42 months, 1,260 days or 3 and a half years and those of Amill or Post mill, and some Historic Premill persuasion see this not as a literal number but Jewish Apocalytic code words for an indefinite time period and not literal years and would generaly view this period from the Ascension of Christ until his second coming using Revelation 12 as a guide.

I appreciate the tenor of this debate (once cool heads prevailed and we all don't claim to be the ONLY right answer).

And a person would have to be "double-minded and unstable" if he believed something that he did not think WAS RIGHT!

So we are reminded for everyone to be fully convinced in their own mind.

I see the amill position as spiritualizing much and assigning to God's Bride (Israel) some of the blessings of Christ's Bride (Church), which ought never to be confused.

Is Christ ruling now? Is THIS the Millennial reign? We have less than 1.4% of all living people even CLAIMING to be "born again". Looks like a failure.

The pre-mill position is the literal hermeneutic of choice (mine) and I leave great latitude whether someone opts to be a pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib adherent. Of course, the pre-trib fits best in my eschatology, albeit a more modern line of thinking.

If I thought that ALL TRUTH was only in the ante-nicene fathers, I would be of all men most miserable!

IN a quick response to one of your points, it would seem that no matter how many people get saved, it's not going to be THAT many in comparison to the lost. Friend, we couldn't EVER call that a failure. It is God who keeps a remnant, not man. Our job is to preach the gospel and we're not responsible for the people that reject Christ. That attitude stems from the idea that salvation is of man.

Thanks
Michael

It is true that some priests, laypersons, elders or deacons are more enlightened and know more than others Christians. If not we could have a new convert/newly saved person trying to interpret the Scriptures. Where I come from most people would not want that kind of person to be interpreting God's sacred Word.

"Ray"

just-want-peace,

I agree with you that the allegorical interpretation of Scripture is very harmful to the Word of God. As you in effect said, we should focus on the literal interpretation of Scripture, if we want to know the true meaning of what God has said to human beings.

This kind of interpretation started in Alexandria, Egypt which was headed by outstanding men like Clement and Origen. This form of interpretation flourished from the second to the late fourth century. At this center almost every reading from the Word of God was explained away as to its original meaning. The school's application of allegory for Biblical interpretation surpassed the complexity of similar methods used by earlier Hellenistic Jews.

This is how many interpretations can come from the Song of Solomon chapter one. The love relationship between a man and a woman . . . Some Christians think that this passage deals with Christ's relationship to the church. Other Catholic commentators conclude that it is an allegory of God's love for Mary. The Jewish Talmud teaches that the book is an allegory of God's love for Israel.

Some people say that Revelation 11:2 ,3--‘forty and two months'-- ‘a thousand two hundred and threescore days' and Revelation 20:2,3,4,5,6,7 ‘a thousand years' means a complete and yet unnumbered period of time. This is a deceptive and fraudulent act of trying to explain His holy Word by changing its true meaning. The Amillennial quasi-truth coming from these passages and others stems from the Alexandrian school of interpretation.

There is a viable judgment that God puts in motion for those who subvert His clear and literal interpretation. [Note: Revelation 22:18 & 19]

Respectfully,

"Ray"

Ray said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some people say that Revelation 11:2 ,3--‘forty and two months'-- ‘a thousand two hundred and threescore days' and Revelation 20:2,3,4,5,6,7 ‘a thousand years' means a complete and yet unnumbered period of time. This is a deceptive and fraudulent act of trying to explain His holy Word by changing its true meaning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it is not since Revelation is Jewish Apocalyptic literature and uses symbols to explain literal things. Interpreting literaly is not always the best way when dealing with Revelation.

Even most Dispensationalists don't always follow a literal method. If they did then they have to admit that there will be giant demonic scorpions stinging people, The AntiChrist will literaly have 7 heads and 10 horns and the False Prophet will look just like a real lamb with 2 horns. So it is not fraudelent or deceptive (which implies Amil, Postmill and even some Premill are intentialy trying to corrupt the Bible) just a differant way of interpretation.

1,260 days, 3 and a half years, 42 months was in Jewish Apocalyptic writings a time of turmoil, trouble. Even Historic Premill George Eldon Ladd stated, "This cannot be interpreted by anyone's calculation as an exact prognosis of time."

Kiffin:

Thank you.

The Myth of "Consistent Literalism"

Kiffin,

I agree with almost all that you wrote. This is good. There are times, however, like in the case of the Millinimum that God means just what He says, because the Millinimum is confirmed repeatedly under the ministry of the Old Testament prophets.

He will be a Ruler in Israel in the future. [Micah 5:2;Isaiah 9:6] His government will be on His shoulder during the Kingdom Age on earth. [Zechariah 6:12&13] A Temple and all the glory will be returned to the Lord in future days. {Zechariah 14:9,16&17] Notice in Jerusalem . . .

"Ray"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
He will be a Ruler in Israel in the future. [Micah 5:2;Isaiah 9:6] His government will be on His shoulder during the Kingdom Age on earth. [Zechariah 6:12&13] A Temple and all the glory will be returned to the Lord in future days. {Zechariah 14:9,16&17] Notice in Jerusalem . . ."Ray"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And none of these blessed truths are antithetical to amillennialism or postmillennialism. It is the timing and character of the reign which is debated ...

Kiffin,

I never read George Eldon Ladd's book, but I have read Drs. Walvoord, Pentecost, Randall Price "Jerusalem In Prophecy," M.J. Agee "Revelations 2000," Paul Enns "The Moody Handbook of Theology,"Grant R. Jeffrey "Prince Of Darkness," Jack Van Impe "Final Mysteries Unsealed," Thomas Ice "The Last Days'Temple"[Executive Director of the Pre-Trib Research Center in Washington, D.C. He holds an advanced degree from Dallas Seminary and a Ph.D. from Tyndale Theological Seminary.

I respect other people's views on eschatology, but once you study these books, no one else even appears to be correct.

"Ray"

You trust Jack Van Impe? Wow, if anything, that would make me run the other direction from any view he supported! LOL

Michael

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Even most Dispensationalists don't always follow a literal method.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any dispensationalists who claim this? I don't believe you do because no dispensationalist will say this in the way you try to frame it. The issue is not "literalism;" it is "normalism." All language is to be interpreted normally. Understanding literal as literal and figurative as figurative. The issue that DT rejects is that literal language should be interpreted figuratively.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1,260 days, 3 and a half years, 42 months was in Jewish Apocalyptic writings a time of turmoil, trouble. Even Historic Premill George Eldon Ladd stated, "This cannot be interpreted by anyone's calculation as an exact prognosis of time."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does he give a reason for this? Or is it simply because he doesn't like where it takes him theologically?

Ok, Pastor Larry, out of curiosity:

If you interpret the 1260 days as literal days, why then would you interpret the weeks of Daniel as not literal weeks?

Also, on a side note. I had attempted to make a personal contact with you outside of the forum, but it has been to no avail, would you rather not speak to me outside of the forum?

In Christ
Michael Edwards

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael D. Edwards:
If you interpret the 1260 days as literal days, why then would you interpret the weeks of Daniel as not literal weeks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Weeks" is not in the text. It reads Seventy sevens. The word "shubua" can be a seven day week but is not necessarily so.

I must have missed the contact outside of the forum. I apologize. I would love to have contact with you outside the forum. Forgive me if I missed it; forgive the board if they messed it up. Come to think of it ... it has to be the BaptistBoard because I am quite sure I never miss anything ... ... Do I????

Ok, bro. Email me please at cr4christ@racsa.co.cr

Thanks
Michael

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kiffin:
Even most Dispensationalists don't always follow a literal method.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have any dispensationalists who claim this?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most Dispies would not claim this. But their reasonings prove otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The issue is not "literalism;" it is "normalism." All language is to be interpreted normally. Understanding literal as literal and figurative as figurative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, which is what amils believe.