dispensationally ignorant

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
... a combination of amil/postmil is essentially the early and dominant position of the Church.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris,

This is just plain false. It is untrue.

From ISBE, 3:358:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Those who regard millennialism as an alien import into the Christian faith have been much embarrassed by its early and widespread acceptance in the patristic Church. Salmond, for example, who considered millennial conceptions totally foreign to Christ's teachings, had to admit that "the dogma of a Millennium...took possession of Christian thought at so early a date and with so strong a grasp that it has sometimes been reckoned an integral part of the primitive Christian faith (p. 312). Papias, who had personal contact with those taught by Christ and His apostles and may well have been a disciples of the apostle John, asserted that "the Lord used to teach concerning those [end] times" that "there will be a period of a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead and the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth" (cited in Eusebius, HE iii.39.12; Irenaeus Adv. haer. v.33.3f). Though Papias fleshed out his millennial reference with details from 2 Baruch (see above), his account is a weighty testimony to primitive Christian eschatological beliefs. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (no later than AD 138) "is a follower of Chiliasm. ... Justin Martyr, ... while granting that "many who belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians think otherwise" than he on the millennial issue, explicityly declared: "I and other are right-minded Christians in all points and are assured that there will be a resurreciton of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be buildt, adorned, and enlarged" (Dial. 80f.) ... Other important patristic millennialists were Irenaeus ... Hippolytus of Rome and Julius "africanus" ... Victorinus of Pattau, the chiliasm of whose commentary on Revelation was edited out by amillennialists Jerome (see Quasten ...), the Africans Tertullian ... Cyprian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Showers has a chapter on "The Rejection of Premillennialism and Development of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism." He deals with the issues in both the east and the west and gives reasons why Premillennialism was rejected in the third century and later.

What you have said here is demonstrably false. Simply looking in reference works that are widely available at any theological library would have prevented you from making such a statement. It remains to be seen whether you are simply repeating what you have heard without studying the issue, or whether you are misrepresenting the facts while knowing differently. I presume the former and that you have learned it from others who are just passing on what they learned without checking the facts. It seems that you have been taught one way and have never been challenged on it. When I have asked direct questions, you very rarely have an answer. Your normal approach has seemed to be "divert attention to something else." You do not show much familiarity with true dispensational approach and teaching, for what is essential and what is not. For instance, you quote an article above that has a clear misrepresentation of the truth in it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This testimony illustrates the grave danger that literalism can inadvertently be regarded as a higher standard of truth than the Bible itself. Rather than allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, the Word of God is sifted through a literalistic filter on the theological presupposition that God shuns figurative prophetic language<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is totally and absolutely false. Literalism is not a higher standard of truth than Scripture. You do not even know what Scripture says without my hermeneutic. For all you know, Paul could have been writing about the athletic contests … unless of course you assume my hermeneutic that says he used words that had a single meaning to communicate his truth intention. The “literalistic filter” is the only way that you can understand the language. You have no idea what I am saying here unless you use my hermeneutic. The dispensationalist does allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. You don’t like what it says because you reject the hermeneutic in favor of your own. The dispensationalist has no presupposition that God shuns figurative prophetic language. That is truly laughable were it not so sad. The dispensationalist freely admits the use of figurative language in prophecy. But we do not “figuratize” that which contradicts our system. We change our system to conform to what God says. You seem to have a presupposition that God shuns literal prophetic language. Except I know that you do believe a literal interpretation of some prophecy because you see Christ prophesied. It is just that you use selective hermeneutics to support your case.

Your article talks of those who interpret history figuratively as if that is dispensationalism. If you had read Ryrie (as I have suggested on numerous occasions) you would know that one of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is consistent use of a normal hermeneutic. When they allegorize history, they are not being consistent and I will join you in refuting them. What is being attacked is not dispensationalism per se but you are not familiar enough with it to know that.

As I pointed out to Sam, you are not even consistent in your own hermeneutic. You spiritualize some prophecies and take others literally. You do not do it because of textual reasons but because you don’t like the outcome. You spiritualize prophecies that are right beside prophecies that have already literally been fulfilled.

This, IMHO, is just sloppy research and argument. You might get away with it in your world but if you are posting here where your material is going to be reviewed and answered, I will point it out every time and hope that others "hanging in the balance" will do their homework.

I do not mean this to be offensive but it gets increasingly frustrating when you simply do not rightly represent your opponents and when you refuse to answer direct questions.

Whew ... I feel better now ... I hope you do not take offense. I do not mean to be overly strong ... just clear.

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry:
Thanks for the help. Like I said I'm too new to dispensationalism to argue it in deepth. But, I'm working on it.Chris, I don't think you give me much credit. I have read a few articls and books, and my current Pastor seems to think that dispensationalism is the ONLY rational explanation of the bible, especially when it comes to prophecy. Chris, you didn't answer me about how do you handle the detailed description of the New Temple in EZk. chapters 40-43? I realize there are several different views, but if you make those chapters symbolic you end up with utter nonsense. Was hoping you could help me out.

As for A and post always being the view of the church, that is wrong. Reading the really early Fathers you can come up with more believing in a literal 1,000 years than you can the symbolic 1,000 years. A couple of the early Fathers, Justin M and Irenaeus were premillennial. The real allegorizing started with Origen and the Alexandrian theologians. When Constantine (a pagan Roman emperor 306-337) named Chrisianity the state reglion,things seemed to go down hill from there. Of course Augustine and others thought the millennial kingdom would end in 1000 a.d. Well, how about 2000 ad?
My comment about the a and post theories being a blantant form of humanism still stands. The Postmillennial view I would think would have NO credibility after the last century and all its wars and bloodshed. The Amillennial view seems to me to be an intellecutal exercise to explain away all the verses in the bible dealing with Israel and the covenant of land etc. Personally, I don't care which one is right, but I just want to know what the truth is.

The premillennial-dispensational view seems to show that man ALWAYS fails and needs God ABSOLUTELY for salvation. How can any theory that gives man even .00000000000000000001 per cent credit for helping God(spreading the gospel and making mankind "ready" for Jesus to return) be correct?
We agree 100 percent on the Sovereignity of God, and of course that is the main thing.
At this point, I haven't heard one single argument for the a or postmillenial position that is convincing.
Hope everyone had a great Christmas.
James2

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:

Thanks for the help. Like I said I'm too new to dispensationalism to argue it in deepth. But, I'm working on it.Chris, I don't think you give me much credit. I have read a few articls and books, and my current Pastor seems to think that dispensationalism is the ONLY rational explanation of the bible, especially when it comes to prophecy. Chris, you didn't answer me about how do you handle the detailed description of the New Temple in EZk. chapters 40-43? I realize there are several different views, but if you make those chapters symbolic you end up with utter nonsense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you assume a wooden literalness to OT prophecy teh NT never assumes. It has already been shown several times that is not how the OT is to be interpreted, and not how the NT interprets it.

Postmillenialist Matthew Henry says this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>INTRODUCTION TO EZEKIEL CHAPTER 40

The waters of the sanctuary which this prophet saw in vision #Eze 47:1 are a proper representation of this prophecy. Hitherto the waters have been sometimes but to the ankles, in other places to the knees, or to the loins, but now the waters have risen, and have become "a river which cannot be passed over."

Here is one continued vision, beginning at this chapter, to the end of the book, which is justly looked upon to be one of the most difficult portions of scripture in all the book of God. The Jews will not allow any to read it till they are thirty years old, and tell those who do read it that, though they cannot understand every thing in it, "when Elias comes he will explain it."

Many commentators, both ancient and modern, have owned themselves at a loss what to make of it and what use to make of it. But because it is hard to be understood we must not therefore throw it by, but humbly search concerning it, get as far as we can into it and as much as we can out of it, and, when we despair of satisfaction in every difficulty we meet with, bless God that our salvation does not depend upon it, but that things necessary are plain enough, and wait till God shall reveal even this unto us.

These chapters are the more to be regarded because the last two chapters of the Revelation seem to have a plain allusion to them, as Rev. 20 has to the foregoing prophecy of Gog and Magog. Here is the vision of a glorious temple (in this chapter and Ezekiel 41 and 42), of God’s taking possession of it (Ezekiel 43), orders concerning the priests that are to minister in this temple (Ezekiel 44), the division of the land, what portion should be allotted for the sanctuary, what for the city, and what for the prince, both in his government of the people and his worship of God (Ezekiel 45), and further instructions for him and the people, Ezekiel 46. After the vision of the holy waters we have the borders of the holy land, and the portions assigned to the tribes, and the dimensions and gates of the holy city, Ezekiel 47-48. Some make this to represent what had been during the flourishing state of the Jewish church, how glorious Solomon’s temple was in its best days, that the captives might see what they had lost by sin and might be the more humbled. But that seems not probable. The general scope of it I take to be,

1. To assure the captives that they should not only return to their own land, and be settled there, which had been often promised in the foregoing chapters, but that they should have, and therefore should be encouraged to build, another temple, which God would own, and where he would meet them and bless them, that the ordinances of worship should be revived, and the sacred priesthood should there attend; and, though they should not have a king to live in such splendour as formerly, yet they should have a prince or ruler (who is often spoken of in this vision), who should countenance the worship of God among them and should himself be an example of diligent attendance upon it, and that prince, priests, and people, should have a very comfortable settlement and subsistence in their own land.

2. To direct them to look further than all this, and to expect the coming of the Messiah, who had before been prophesied of under the name of David because he was the man that projected the building of the temple and that should set up a spiritual temple, even the gospel church, the glory of which should far exceed that of Solomon’s temple, and which should continue to the end of time. The dimensions of these visionary buildings being so large (the new temple more spacious than all the old Jerusalem and the new Jerusalem of greater extent than all the land of Canaan) plainly intimates, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that these things cannot be literally, but must spiritually, understood. At the gospel temple, erected by Christ and his apostles, was so closely connected with the second material temple, was erected so carefully just at the time when that fell into decay, that it might be ready to receive its glories when it resigned them, that it was proper enough that they should both be referred to in one and the same vision. Under the type and figure of a temple and altar, priests and sacrifices, is foreshadowed the spiritual worship that should be performed in gospel times, more agreeable to the nature both of God and man, and that perfected at last in the kingdom of glory, in which perhaps these visions will have their full accomplishment, and some think in some happy and glorious state of the gospel church on this side heaven, in the latter days. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
[QB]The real allegorizing started with Origen and the Alexandrian theologians. When Constantine (a pagan Roman emperor 306-337) named Chrisianity the state reglion,things seemed to go down hill from there. Of course Augustine and others thought the millennial kingdom would end in 1000 a.d. Well, how about 2000 ad? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The allegorization of Scripture has nothing to do with amil or postmil, as neither engage in allegorization. Rather they read the OT text canonically, i.e., the spiritual and typological fulfillment. If it must be fulfilled literally, then you've got a problem with Jesus when he said that Elijah came in the person of John the Baptist.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My comment about the a and post theories being a blantant form of humanism still stands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Upon what basis? Are you saying that theologians like Kik, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Matthew Henry, Lorraine Boettner, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Anthony Hoekema, B.B. Warfield, et.al. were humanistic rather than biblical scholars? Your charge has no basis of fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Postmillennial view I would think would have NO credibility after the last century and all its wars and bloodshed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In defense of postmills, they view Scripture as the locus of truth, not current events. Current and even future wars and atrocities do no rule out a future golden age, if that is what Scripture teaches.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Amillennial view seems to me to be an intellecutal exercise to explain away all the verses in the bible dealing with Israel and the covenant of land etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the amil view reads Scripture the covenantal way, which assures us that all of Israel is not Israel, but only believers are sons of Abraham, and that God will return once at the end of the age, as Scripture assures us.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, I don't care which one is right, but I just want to know what the truth is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears you have already made up your mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The premillennial-dispensational view seems to show that man ALWAYS fails and needs God ABSOLUTELY for salvation. How can any theory that gives man even .00000000000000000001 per cent credit for helping God(spreading the gospel and making mankind "ready" for Jesus to return) be correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a strawman, unless your form of dispensationalism does not include the Great Commission? Neither amil or postmil give man any credit at all, as their greatest proponents have always been staunchly Calvinistic or Lutheran.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We agree 100 percent on the Sovereignity of God, and of course that is the main thing.
At this point, I haven't heard one single argument for the a or postmillenial position that is convincing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because you've already made up your mind?

May I suggest reading:
A Present or Future Millennium?

Amillennialism Part I Part II Part III

A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism

And some articles at Eschatology

 

Chris:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm not condemning anyone, least of all the scholars you mentioned.
I'm going to read the articles you suggested. I don't have my mind made up at all. That's why I'm searching out the different theories.

James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
As for A and post always being the view of the church, that is wrong. Reading the really early Fathers you can come up with more believing in a literal 1,000 years than you can the symbolic 1,000 years. A couple of the early Fathers, Justin M and Irenaeus were premillennial. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I used the word always it was too strong a word. Many early fathers were chiliasts - although not overly developed, systematic ones. But nevertheless, the early church soon rejected Chiliasm. But Charles F. Hill says:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To many Christians today, premillennialism is the very mark of Christian orthodoxy. But there was a period of well over a "millennium" (over half of the Church's history), from at least the early fifth century until the sixteenth, when chiliasm was dormant and practically non-existent. Even through the Reformation and much of the post-Refor-mation period, advocates of chiliasm were usually found among fringe groups like the Münsterites. The Augsburg Confession went out of its way to condemn chiliasm (Art. XVII, "Of Christ's Return to Judgment"), and John Calvin criticized "the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years" (Institutes 3.25.5). It was not until the nineteenth century that chiliasm made a respectable comeback, as a favorite doctrine of Christian teachers who were promoting revival in the face of the deadening effects of encroaching liberalism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See

Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paul hadik:
Pastor Larry and Chris:
thanks for the spirited debate, like J2 I myself am still learning

Am confused with Revelation 20
Chris: this seems pretty clear about 1000 years and adds the detail of Satan being chained up, what is the chaining up of Satan if not literal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul:

Don't confuse literally true with literalism. Can a spirit be secured in a place by a link of chain? It refers to a limitation on the effectiveness and work of Satan. And this occurred at the First Coming of Christ.

Matthew 12:28-29 (ESV)
But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. [29] Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

We see here the kingdom of God has come with Christ, and he bound the strong man - Satan - in order for the gospel to go into all the world.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Pastor Larry:
Thanks for the help. Like I said I'm too new to dispensationalism to argue it in deepth. But, I'm working on it.I haven't heard one single argument for the a or postmillenial position that is convincing.

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. From Adam until John the Baptist, God and the Holy Spirit led Israel under the "law
and prophets".

Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John:

2. These all stopped with the appearance of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and the Gospel was
taken to the Gentiles.

Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

3. Jesus and Holy Ghost leaves the earth. (Rapture, fulness of the Gentiles)

4. God and the Holy Spirit will again led Israel under the "law and prophets" (two
witnesses) during Daniel's 70th week, (Tribulation)

5. Jesus will end that "week" by appearing in the "SKY" and on Mt Olives.

6. Jesus will then restore "David's throne", and we'll rule with him for a thousand years.

Am 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

(David Throne was on Earth, not in Heaven)

How can you read/study the Bible and not see these dispensation of time
when things change?

There are "several" verses that prove the Millennium reign, I'll just point out a couple.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight,

Jesus made the point that if he was sitting up his kingdom in this world, his servants would fight, and that's exactly what he and his servants do when they comes back.

Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives,

9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

The Millennium Reign is the "Physical Kingdom" God promised to Israel in the OT, you don't really think God would make a "literal promise" to a people he knew would take him "Literally" at his word and not keep it, did you???

The Millennium Reign corresponds to the "Seventh day of rest" in creation, and that's how it is promised to us.

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of
another day.

9 There "REMAINETH" therefore a (nother seventh day of) rest to the people of God.

The only place you'll find Jesus sitting on "HIS THRONE", is on Earth, in Jerusalem.

In heaven, he doesn't sit "on the throne", but on the "Right hand".

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
The allegorization of Scripture has nothing to do with amil or postmil, as neither engage in allegorization. Rather they read the OT text canonically, i.e., the spiritual and typological fulfillment. If it must be fulfilled literally, then you've got a problem with Jesus when he said that Elijah came in the person of John the Baptist.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point is the major reason scripture is confusing to many.

In the OT, everything was "physical", the "Law", "signs and wonders", God was taken
"literally" at his word, then Jesus and his "Spiritual Kingdom" came and he refused to produce the "signs and wonders" to which Israel had become accustomed.

In refusing to accept the Church's "Spiritual leadership, and interpretation", Israel was left
"in the dark" concerning the NT.

Now the Church refuses to accept Israel's "literal interpretations", and like Israel, it to is left "in the dark" concerning the OT.

Israel doesn't understand how a "Spiritual intrepretation" applies to them, and the Church doesn't understand how a "literal interpretation" applies to it, hence, each interprets only "ONE" appearence of Elijah.

The disciple didn't understand this mixture of "literal" and "Spiritual" interpretation, it's why they ask Jesus:

Mr 9:11 And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?

Jesus then gave them the Spiritual answer, John The Baptist, however when Elijah comes
during tribulation, all Jews will recognize him.

Until Israel understands that their "literal prophecy" has "Spiritual applications", and the Church understands it's "Spiritual prophecy" also has "literal applications", NEITHER SIDE, will "FULLY" understand the Bible.

Scripture, can and does, have a "dual meaning/application", and it's still causing as much confusion today as for the disciples.

 

To the above discussion concerning whether or not the OT Saints were saved by faith in Christ (BTW, which is the only way) I would refer you to chapters 10 & 11 of Romans. There is a very clear picture of where the Gentile stands. Romans 11:17 states we were grafted into a tree that already exists and that some of the "Natural Branches" were broken off so that we might be grafted in (contrary to nature).

Also:

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

The Church has alway been thoughout all ages, from Adam till now.

 

S Baptist:
Your points are well taken. One of the main obstacles that the a and post people have to overcome is this: Why do they all take the prophesy of Jesus 1st coming literally and then when it comes to the 2nd coming they switch to taking all the prophesy "spiritually." On what basis do they do this? It really doesn't make any sense to me, but I continue to research the subject.
Thanks for all the points you have made. I've had others make the same points and they are convincing.
James2

 

doodle:
It seems to me that the distinctiveness of the character of the church as the Body of Christ is twofold. It is distinct because of who are included within that body (Jews and Gentiles as fellow heirs), and it is distinct because of the new relationships of being in Christ and of Christ indwelling the members of that body. Both of these distinctives are unique with the church and were not known or experienced by God's people in the Old Testament times or even during the earthly lifetime of Our Lord. The new relationship begin with Pentecost (John 14:20). Thank you for taking the time to respond.
James2

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by doodle:
To the above discussion concerning whether or not the OT Saints were saved by faith in Christ (BTW, which is the only way) I would refer you to chapters 10 & 11 of Romans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great!!! Someone with an answer. Now the only thing you are lacking is an OT verse where the OT person is commanded to believe in Christ for salvation. As soon as you list this verse, your point will be proven.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Church has alway been thoughout all ages, from Adam till now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great again!!! Once again, the only thing you are lacking is a verse where the OT believers are identified as the church. As soon as you list this verse, your point will be proven.

Of course, you will never list the verses needed because they do not exist ... which brings us back to the original point. The dispensational view on these issues is driven by what Scripture says. The Covenantal view on these things is driven by what their system dictates. The Covenantalist determines what Scripture says by what his system will allow. Therein lies the problem: Do we derive our interpretation of Scripture from our system or do we derive our system from Scripture?

The dispensationalist believes the latter; the covenantalist believes, at least to some degree, the former, as evidenced above. Your belief that an OT person was saved by faith in Christ is not a position derived from Scripture. If it was, you would have a verse that shows that. It is derived from what your system dictates.

The same is true with the church. I have begged one of you to show one verse where the OT believers are called "The body of Christ," or for that matter the body of anything. You cannot find such a verse. Why? BEcuase it is not there. You assert that the OT nation of Israel is the church because of your system, not because of Scripture.

 

Pastor Larry:
In an earlier post, Chris Temple suggested some further reading on Amillennialism. I read those articles and they are very powerful. However, maybe I'm already leaning in the other direction too much to be truly objective, but those articles didn't explain the reason they (the amillennialist) take the scriptures dealing with the first coming of Jesus literally and all the scriptures dealing with the 2nd coming spiritually. Am I missing something really obvious here. Help!!!
James2

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Paul,

In v. 4, there are two groups: Those who are reigning (first part) and those who were killed and then raised and then ruling (last part). The first part probably refers to the faithful, the church, members of the army of Christ (from 19); the second seems to refer to the tribulation martyrs. I would recommend reading Thomas’s commentary for a further description. He devotes almost six pages to this verse discussing the various ideas and showing the problems of interpretation encountered.

As for vv. 7-8, the Millennial kingdom is originally populated by all believers, since the unbelievers have all been killed by the King and his armies (chapter 19). However, the earth will be populated by those who survived the tribulation as believers. Because of natural procreation, their children will be born depraved, albeit without influence of Satan who is bound. Apparently, the point is to show that even in a perfect situation (with Christ ruling and Satan bound) depravity still causes men to follow after sin. Thus, the Millennial kingdom disproves the “moral influence” or Pelagian theory of Adam’s sin. In a perfect theocracy that starts will all believers and Satan being bound, man will still sin and reject God because he is born into depravity. When Satan is released, he will once again gather followers only to be defeated for the final time. After this, the GWT judgment will result in all unbelievers being cast into death and hell – this is the second death.

As for Satan being bound, Chris again talks of Matthew 12 and the strongman, but he fails to deal with the objections that I brought up. 1) Matthew 12 does not say that the strongman was bound; only that he must be bound; Since the kingdom did not come (it was taken away) it is obvious that he was not bound; 2) Satan is currently not bound as is evidenced by his “disguising himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14), walking about as a roaring lion (2 Peter 5:7), being the prince of the power of the air who is now working (Eph 2:1), etc. There are simply too many references to Satan being free and working to consider him bound. Again, the exegesis precludes the present binding of Satan.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
In an earlier post, Chris Temple suggested some further reading on Amillennialism. I read those articles and they are very powerful. However, maybe I'm already leaning in the other direction too much to be truly objective, but those articles didn't explain the reason they (the amillennialist) take the scriptures dealing with the first coming of Jesus literally and all the scriptures dealing with the 2nd coming spiritually. Am I missing something really abvious here. Help!!!
James2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope ... you hit the nail on the head. The only reason they take some literally and some figuratively is because they have predetermined the conclusion. When you read their exegesis (Chris has posted some of it) you see that they very rarely deal with the words and grammar itself; they are much more intent on dealing with things outside the text. His quote from Matthew Henry about Ezek 40 was fascinating. Point 1 gets it right. Israel was to expect certain things. Point 2 is devoted to destroying what he just said in point 1. The kingdom and temple is not really for them and it is not really physical.

Their approach runs like this: When there is no coming kingdom, any verse that prophesies something that looks and acts like a coming kingdom must be spiritual. Of course, they can't admit that because it would show the fallacy of their approach. I do not understand why they reject it. For me, a God who created the world has no problem with a coming kingdom. And if he intended anything other than a coming kingdom, he did a very bad job of communicating that since he used words that communicate very clearly a coming kingdom. The only way Henry can make point 1 (above) is that he understands the words. The only that he can make point 2 is that he denies the meaning of the words he previously understood.

Like you, I have never seen a good reason for why they some literally and some figuratively (a point I brought up both to Sam and to Chris). Unlike you, I have never seen a powerful article supporting amillennialism. It just involves redefining too many clear passages in favor of the obscure ones for my taste. But I take heart: they preach salvation through Christ much better than some (maybe most) dispensationalists do and at least their idea of the kingdom is not really hurting anyone. I just find it horribly inconsistent.

 

Pastor Larry:
I read Matthew Henry's commentary on Ezk. 40-43 and really got confused. I guess my Pastor explains it better because he takes the words to mean what they say. After all, why spend pages and pages going over every detail, and then deny what the words say. Doing that ends up in symbolic nonsense.

If God cannot be taken at His word when he unconditionally promises Israel certain land (which can be verified, unlike symbolic promises) then why believe ANYTHING God says. I believe the people that say the common, simple, logical meaning of words are how they should be understood, instead of meaning something uncommon, complex and illogical.

I agree with Chris on salvation completely, but on this subject I am leaning to taking the scripture for what it says. How can a 1,000 year reign by Christ on David's throne, mean 2,000 years and counting ruling in heaven? It seems to me that the early Fathers took the 1,000 years literally. I believe it was Augustine that said the church was in the 1,000 years. Of course, after AD 1000 they had to come up with something else. I think they started at 325a.d. Of course then they had to come up with something else. Now they have 1,000 years meaning a unspecified amount of time (the time between the first and second coming). You figure it!!!
James2

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

James2,

Sorry for the delay in responding but the past week has been rather demanding. I promise to respond much sooner from now on. Also, James2, please don’t take anything I write to be hostile or argumentative. Sometimes forceful words in text lose their meaning when vocalization is absent. I truly mean no disrepect to you in what I write.



<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> James2: I have a couple of questions.
1. Doesn't it seem to you that the amillennial and the postmillennial positions, when you get right down to it, are a form of gnosticism? Both of those systems seem to want to bring God down to man, and on the other hand, bring man up to God. It seems almost like they are advocating a type of dualism. The material against the spiritual, as if the spiritual is somehow superior to the material. I don't think the bible will support that concept. After all, the body, the earth, the created order, as well as the spiritual was created by God. Man fell, but so did the angels. No superiority there. In dispensationalism man fails everytime. Man can do nothing. In the other systems man seems to "help" God or rely on their own powers. Man gets better and better then Christ can return. I don't know, that seems God-dishonoring to me. God is in complete control and man can do NOTHING of himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A form of gnosticism? James2, nothing could be further from the truth and I’m surprised you would make such a statement. Gnosticism is basically described as “a form of mystical religious or philosophical doctrines which other adherents and some early Christian sects spread and which the early Church leaders vehemently rejected as heresy”. How could you possibly relate either a or post-millennialism with gnosticism and on what basis do you make such a charge? Also, the most basic understanding of the soteriological doctrine of both a- and post-millennialism flatly reject the idea of bringing God down to man. Whatever source you are using to come up with these views is fallacious. Where do you see either system creating “dualism” or pitting the “material” against the “spiritual”. If you could be specific with your statements, answering them would be much easier. James2, please don’t take this the wrong way but it seems as though you have things complete reversed. Neither the a-mil nor the post-mil have a soteriology that teaches what you claim by your statement, “In dispensationalism man fails everytime. Man can do nothing. In the other systems man seems to "help" God or rely on their own powers.” Perhaps you need to start quoting your sources rather than just making these accusations and assuming they are true. Actually, it is Dispensationalism’s soteriology that proclaims man (the unbeliever) exercises his so-called “free-will” in order to activate his salvation. You must remember that the a-mil and post-mil views are eschatological and not soteriological. However, typically, those who support these eschatologies often fall into Covenant/Reformed Theology which encompasses our specific soteriology, which is the opposite of what you claim we teach.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James2: 2. How does one deal with the fact that all the prophecy that dealt with the first coming of Christ was taken in the most literal sense and was fulfilled in the most detailed literal sense. Then when it comes to the Second Coming all of a sudden everything is taken in a nonliteral sense? That doesn't make sense to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again James2, you are speaking with far too many generalities. Are you referring to the Preterist view or the hyper-Preterist view and if so, what in particular. If you are referring to the views either the a-mil or the post-mil view has with a Preterist view, please state “which” specific eschatological views you are referring to. Also, do you ask these questions as a result of what Dispensationalism says about either the a-mil or post-mil view or from having read works by those who support either the a-mil or post-mil view? And I don’t recall reading anywhere that either the a-mil or post-mil position views every aspect of the Second Coming of Christ as strictly metaphorical (or literal) so you really need to explain what you are talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James2: 3. As far as I can tell the Church and Israel are never interchanged. They are always seperate. Why would Israel mean the Church? Even Paul, after Penecost refers to Israel and the Church as different things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are expressing a Dispensationalist view but not a Biblical view. You have taken what Dispensationalism says about the words “Church” and “Israel” and forced them to always have an antithetical definition, regardless the context in which they are used. However, Paul does not always refer to the Church and Israel as different things. In fact, in Romans 9:6, Paul states that not all Israelites are of Israel. Here Paul clearly states that not even the terms Israel and Israel always mean the same. However, in Romans 11:1, Paul states he is an Israelite and refers to himself as being of Israel but not of the same Israel as those who are in unbelief. So here Paul uses the same term to mean something different and the same thing. The Bible clearly uses the terms Israel and Israel to mean both the same thing and not the same thing according to how it is used in proper context.

In Romans 9:27, Paul states that those who are of Israel (and who are also “not” all of Israel) will be saved as the remnant of Israel. Obviously, Paul is either referring to ethnic Israelites who will be saved or to those who are spiritual Israel who will be saved. I think it inconceivable to say that the unbelieving Jew will be saved any differently than the unbelieving Gentile and since it is God who has brought both the Jew and the Gentile together into one body of Christ (His Church), then Paul is definitely referring to those Jews and Gentiles who are saved as being the Israel who will be saved. An ethnic Jew can be of the nation of Israel as well as being in the body of Christ, His Church, and Paul is the perfect example. However, an ethnic Jew who is not in the body of Christ, His Church, is not the same thing when referring to the term “Israel”. To say they are always separate is clearly disproved by scripture itself with Paul as the example.

Perhaps if you could present a specific argument with an example of what you know Reformed theology teaches that you disagree with then I could better understand your disagreement.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James2: 4. As far as I can tell, the Church has BOTH Jews and Gentiles in it. That of course wasn't true in the Old Testament.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James2, this is another Dispensational myth. I challenge you to produce a single verse of scripture that supports such a claim. Do you believe both Jews and Gentiles were saved as a result of hearing Jesus preach His gospel in the gospel accounts? I sincerely hope you do because if you don’t, then the gospels have surely lied to us. However, the gospels clearly tell us that many Jews and Gentiles were saved. Of course, Dispensationalism teaches a variety of saved classifications in order to justify rejecting what our Lord said about bringing both Jews and Gentiles into one body (His Church). However, the Bible teaches no such thing about different classifications of saved people and if you believe our Lord brought all into one body (His Church), then cannot believe what Dispensationalism teaches.

Those to whom Jesus preached the gospel and were saved did so while under the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. The New Covenant/Testament gives us the clearest understanding of the whole of scripture and the NT has authority over the OT in areas of interpreting unclear verses in the OT. Since the authority of the NT clearly tells us that salvation is by grace through faith, then I would be rejecting our Lord’s own words if I believed salvation to be accomplished in any other way. It is the NT that describes Abraham as the father of “faith” to all of us. Now, if the father of faith was saved differently than you or I, then where in scripture, James2, do you find what that difference is. Don’t give me the typical Dispensational approach, just quote the clear and unambiguous scripture that has led you to believe this wasn’t true when Jesus preached His gospel to thousands in the gospel accounts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James2: (continued) 4. Further, Christ is said to dwell in the members of His body -- both Jew and Gentile. That was not true or was not experienced by God's people in the Old Testament. Having Jews and Gentiles in the same body was a mystery not revealed to the Old Testament saints.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you really believe this, then you are saying that any person who was saved prior to the NT were really not saved since they did not have Christ dwelling in them. If that is true, then Abraham was not in a righteous standing with God (or any of His prophets) since they did not have Christ dwelling in them. Doesn’t it seem a little odd to you how the father of faith to all who are “in Christ” who have “Christ in them” did not have Christ in him? Is Dispensationalism the only thing you use to interpret scripture?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James2: One last question: How do the amillennialist and post millennialist deal with things like Ezekiel, Chapters 40-43 and the very, very detailed description of how to build the New Temple? Is all that to be an allegory instead of literally? That doesn't make any sense to me either. Why would God devote 3 chapters of scripture in such detail when it wasn't meant to be taken literally?
Also, do you think that the main reason for God dealing with man in the first place was to show His own Glory, or was it to save man? I guess that would make a difference on how one sees things. Of course it isn't really important what I think, but what the Bible teaches. It seems if you take things in the plain, literal sense, the bible makes more sense than if you try to "spiritualize" the texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you will be more specific, I will discuss this with you because I can’t give you specific answers to generic questions. Furthermore, I would encourage you to read precisely what Ezekiel 40-43 actually states and then tell me if you truly believe in a strict literal interpretation of everything it says. Why don’t you break this discussion into two, one being soteriology and the other being eschatology?

Sam Hughey

 

Sam:
Please forgive me, but I've been home sick since Dec. 26th and am still feeling really miserable. I don't take your words as being offensive. In fact, thank you for the food for thought. Like I said at the beginning of this subject, I am just looking into these views, and the views I stated are questions that I have come up with -- maybe observations would be a better word.

Just one point tho. I'm not sure that the OT states that the OT saints had Jesus Christ in mind when they performed their animal sacrifices. How could they? While salvation is by grace in both Testaments, not by works, how could Abel have known much of anything about Jesus Christ? Maybe he did know, and God put that knowledge in him. But is it stated somewhere? Just asking. In the last 3 weeks I've heard so much about dispensationalism, and covenant theology that I'm about to get sick and tired of the whole thing. (Don't feel good right now, sorry).
I was talking about post and a seeming to put man in a position to help God, instead of God being absolutely sovereign. My understanding of postM is that (and this has changed several times) the church age which is between the lst and 2nd coming is what we are in now. The world will improve by the spreading of the gospel and then, when things are great, Jesus will come. I think that is absurd on the face of it. Maybe it is my understanding of the doctrine that is absurd. At this point I'm not sure. As for A-M that states that ALL the literal promises given to the Nation Israel have been taking over by the Church. I don't agree with that either.

Anyway, I'll try to respond to you in a more detailed, coherent way when I feel better.

Thanks for the very thoughtful response. It looks like you spend a great deal of time on it.
God Bless
James2