Amillenialism

The appeal to Elijah is an interesting twist. Jesus also said that John is Elijah if they receive it, which they didn't. Also, the Scribes didn't have their way with John. It was the Romans that had him killed.

The 1,000 year earthly kingdom of Christ before the new heavens and new earth. I do know the arguments of amill. It might not be your brand though. You still didn't answer the question about Jesus' answer to the disciples.

Mt 24 and Lk 21 could not possibly be speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. First I will deal with the simple question about "this generation". Jesus said that the generation that sees these things come to pass surely will not pass away until they all happen. Simple enough. The generation that witnesses the beginning of what Mt 24 and Lk 21 speak of will see all of it. 7 years to be exact. That is "plain" interpretation.

Here is some more on Mt 24 and Lk21:
Jesus said that there will not be known to men a more horrible time, ever. The destruction of one city hardly is the worst the world has known. Consider the context of how Jesus is also speaking of Noah. Are you and any other amills going to attempt to persuade people that the destruction of the world is not to be compared to the awful destruction of Jerusalem? Right. Jerusalem has been leveled many times. This one time was worse than a worldwide flood? No.

The allegory you mentioned is something that is figurative. The Genesis passage that Paul referred to actually happened. It is a historical event. He used the stories in a figurative sense. The had symbolism but stood for literal things (events).

I still agree with MacArthur.

 

I have to be quick. I think you are right about the three questions asked by the disciples. I was specifically talking about the Acts 1 passage. Anyhow, I think Jesus answered the question about the temple immediately. He combined the second and third question into one answer because it is one event for the lost Jew.

 

I'm leaning to dispensationalism. Otherwise, there are way too many definite promises made by God to Israel that have to be spiritualized into being fulfilled by the
Church.

How does one explain the last couple of chapters of Ezekiel where it seems that the division of the land between the northern and southern tribes is the exact opposite of what it has always been. The northern tribes are now in the south and the southern tribes are now in the north. Of course then there is the question about the river of fresh water flowing out of the city with the fresh water turning the Dead Sea into sweet water, the trees growing on both sides of the river, etc. mentioned in Ezekiel 47. How has this already been fulfilled? How has ANY of it been fulfilled? How did the church fulfill the part about the Dead Sea being turned into sweet water so fisherman can now fish in it? Is this spiritulized to mean that the people of God will be sweet and kind? I don't know, I'm just asking. How do the amill and Petretist people deal with that, or is that something that was put in the bible by the prophet just to fill up the bible? Had to put something in Chapters 47 and 48 I would imagine!!!

Further, it seems to me that one of the really great things about God making absolute, unconditional promises to Israel concerning land, with specific boundaries no less, is those promises can be emperically verified. If you spiritualize all those promises to somehow make them be fulfilled in the church, then you have to just about have your own visions so you can make everything fit your theology. How do those specific promises come to be fulfilled in the invisible body of believers, who are spread around the entire globe? The more I study the Old Testament, the more it seems to make complete sense to take it at it's word. Otherwise you run into some terrible problems trying to explain the simple meaning of the texts. I'm not a scholar on this and in fact, I am rather new to the whole subject since I was raised in the amill position. But...... well, carry on the discusion because I want to continue to learn.
God Bless
James2

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Baptist...Amillenialist...New Covenant in Christ...New Covenant Theology...consistent thinking and true understanding of scripture and eschatology.

I truly believe that the only understanding one could come to when being consistent with the New Covenant in Christ is to know that we are entering (have entered into?) the times of Noah when we are seeing the end draw near in the destruction of this present world of sin and the deliverance through the Ark which is Christ. Noah went through quite a bit of persecution before God delivered him through judgement.

Redemption through judgement, what a thought!

 

Any of you Amillenialists care to answer my question about the 47th and 48th chapters of Eziekel? Just wondering how those chapters are explained away or made to fit the idea that they were all fulfilled in or by the church.
Peace
James2

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Any of you Amillenialists care to answer my question about the 47th and 48th chapters of Eziekel? Just wondering how those chapters are explained away or made to fit the idea that they were all fulfilled in or by the church.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. I had to answer that on an OT history exam:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Archer wrote of the "Problem of the Fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48." He stated that if we cannot expect a literal fulfillment of what is described in those nine chapters, then we have "a portion of Scripture containing false prophecy." He said that the figurative interpretations of these passages are a way of avoiding that conclusion. It is true that explanations contrived to avoid difficulties are dubious at best, but it is not the view of this student that the figurative method was applied for that reason. In Acts 15 where it is recorded that the apostles and elders met to discuss the issue of Gentile conversions, James quoted Amos 9.11-12 about the restoration of the Davidic dynasty and pointed to the Gentile faith in Christ as the fulfillment. Archer mentioned that there is no hint that Ezekiel's vision was meant to be taken figuratively. Jesus spoke of destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days. It wasn't until after His resurrection that His apostles understood Him figuratively to mean the temple of His body. Ezekiel 40-48 is simply figurative.

There are well-educated and orthodox expositors who see Ezekiel 40-48 as literal and simply as yet unfulfilled, but that view is not without its difficulties as well. The first difficulty is with the stated purpose of the temple. It was to make a dwelling place for God, Exod 25.8. It is plainly stated in the New Testament that God does not dwell in houses made with hands, Acts 7.48, and that these carnal provisions (Heb 7.16) were only figures themselves of the true things, Heb 9.24). It is also stated that the church is God's house, 1 Cor 3.16, 3.17, 2 Cor 6.16, 1 Pet 2.5.

Another difficulty encountered by the literalists is the testimony of a standing temple. St. Paul emphatically stated to the Hebrews that God the Holy Ghost was testifying "that the way into the holiest of all was not made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing," Heb 9.8. It would seem that the reestablishment of an earthly temple would testify that Christ has not come, which is the spirit of antichrist, 1 John 4.3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Ok, but you haven't answered the main question. Chapters 47 and 48 deal specifically with a river flowing into the dead sea and other places, and the fact that the tribes that were in the south are now in the north and vice versa. How could those chapters have been fulfilled in the church?

As for the temple, chapter 43 deals in detail with the building and the purpose. No way to spiritualize these details, and make any sense.

Deal especially with Chapters 47 and 48. I think the problems presented in those two chapters are going to be very difficult for the Amillenialist to overcome. Why would the scriptures take up so much space and detail when none of it meant what it said, but was rather to be somehow spiritualized?
James2

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

I also had to discuss the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Using Things to Come by Dwight Pentecost, or a Bible encyclopedia, list and discuss briefly the promises of the Abrahamic Convenant.

J. Dwight Pentecost divided the promises of the Abrahamic covenant into three sections; individual, national and universal. Quoting John F. Walvoord, Pentecost enlarged upon these divisions.

The individual promises were the promises made to Abraham himself. To Abraham it is promised "that he would be the father of a great nation (Gen. 12:2), . . . including kings and nations other than the 'seed itself' (Gen. 17:6). God promises His personal blessing on Abraham. His name shall be great and he himself shall be a blessing. . . ."

The national blessings are those promises made to Abraham's descendants. "The nation itself should be great (Gen. 12:2) and innumerable (Gen. 13:16; 15:5)." Walvoord was careful here to emphasize the "everlasting" nature of this promise.

The universal promises are the promises to "all families of the earth," Gen 12.3. Then the surprising statement was made that "[a]s a general promise it is probably intended to have a general fulfillment."

Pentecost then emphasized the danger of overlapping the promises saying, ". . . it is of utmost importance to keep the different areas in which promise was made clearly in mind. . . . Personal promises may not be transferred to the nation and promises to Israel may not be transferred to the Gentiles." This appears to be an arbitrary stipulation, yet necessary to maintain a dispensational premillennial eschatology.

It is the opinion of this student that according to Gal 3.16 the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed, which according to Walvoord and Pentecost pertains only to national Israel, but which, according to St. Paul, pertains to only one Man, Jesus Christ. The promises to the seed are then conferred upon believers, Jew and Gentile alike, who are joint-heirs with Christ, Rom 8.17,32. This appears to be a dramatic transfer, contrary to Pentecost's disallowance of such, but this is not the place to debate the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My professor, who is Premillennial, and who always expressed himself in few words said simply, "Solid."

 

Aaron:
How can you maintain that the land promises make to the nation of Israel have been fulfilled. That is something that can be verified, and they have not happened yet. Since God does what he says, those promises have to still be in the future.

Like I said earlier, I'm rather new to the debate on this subject, but my reading so far, including Penetcost, have been fairly convincing. Also, the things I mentioned in my last post have never been answered conviningly by any Amillenialist.
Time to end this for tonight.
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Ok, but you haven't answered the main question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! You stay up late!

Why strain at these gnats to swallow the camel of anti-Christ? If indeed a standing temple testifies that the way into the holiest of all had not yet been made manifest, why insist that God plans to build another temple made with hands?

 

Whose straining at gnats? Answer the questions please. Forget the temple then, even tho their are 1,000 words of details explaining how to build it and its function. What about Chapters 47 and 48?
It's late so will continue tomorrow.
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Aaron:
How can you maintain that the land promises make to the nation of Israel have been fulfilled. That is something that can be verified, and they have not happened yet. Since God does what he says, those promises have to still be in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you will recall, the promises made to earthly Israel were conditional upon their faithfulness to the covenant. It was a covenant based on works, and Israel failed just like Adam to keep God's laws. If the borders of their habitation were not what was promised, it was because of them, not God.

Jesus is the only One who could fulfill the Law, therefore He was the only true heir of the promises and we by faith are joint-heirs with Him.

But land...what saith the Scripture?

Abraham looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God--not man (Hebrews 11:10). He did not find it, and neither did his earthly children even after crossing over. For if Joshua had given them rest, the Scriptures would not afterward have spoken of another day (Heb. 4:8).

Hagar is allegorical of Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children. Sarah is allegorical of the Heavenly Jerusalem. What says the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman AND her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Scripture says "Cast out earthly Jerusalem and her children." But Premillenialists say "Bless her and her children and we will be blessed."

Scripture says "Abandon her," but Premillenialists say "Support her."

I don't know, I don't think quibbling over the minutia of rivers in Ezekiel 47 and 48 will convince you if you're not convinced when I strike at the heart of the debate.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

But you wanted me to answer the question about the rivers.

The church is the New Jerusalem, and the rivers spoken of flow out of, not into Jerusalem. This is plainly the Gospel which was first preached in Jerusalem then spread to the world.

As Christ said, John 7:38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
If you will recall, the promises made to earthly Israel were conditional upon their faithfulness to the covenant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is perhaps the biggest fallacy of covenant theology (besides the hermeneutic which Michael has addressed here in the form of a question). The AC was not conditioned on obedience. It required none. The promises of the AC were unconditional. If you read the text (Gen 12, 13, 15, 17) there are no conditions attached. The conditional part was the Mosaic covenant. However, when we look at that, we find that the only thing conditional was not the fulfillment of the AC but rather the participation of a specific generation in the AC. The AC was unconditional; it was participated in according to the stipulations of the MC.

For a clear reference to this, notice the MC (or what some call the Palestinian covenant) in Deut 30 where God promises that when Israel repents, he will restore them to the land which their fathers possessed. This cannot, of necessity, be anything spiritual for the "land which their fathers possessed" was a defined piece of real estate. This promise cannot be fulfilled in the post exilic nation because the description of peace, defeat and cursing of the enemies, being multiplied greater than their fathers, etc. just didn't happen. In short, this promise has never yet been fulfilled.

We see the repentance and its results promised in Zech 12:10ff. and it greatly resembles exactly what is said here.

We see here the "circumcision of the heart" terminology that is prevalent in the New covenant promises in Jer and Ezek.

We see in Jer 31 that Israel cannot be cast off for what they have done. Yet Aaron directly contradicts this promise when he says that Israel was cast off for breaking the covenant.

Furthermore, we see Paul in Gal 3:17 tell us that the Law which came 430 years later cannot annul the promise. While he highlights a particular part of the AC (the blessing through the one seed), he does not repudiate the rest of it. In fact, he expresses in no uncertain terms that it has not been annulled.

In other words, the position that Israel's breaking of the covenant caused the AC to be removed cannot stand in either the OT or the NT.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Aaron:
How can you maintain that the land promises make to the nation of Israel have been fulfilled. That is something that can be verified, and they have not happened yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is so hard to understand about:

"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. [8] And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." [9] So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. .. so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith...
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Galatians 3:7-9;14;16; 26-29 (ESV)

The promise to Abraham was one of salvation, to all peoples, Jew and Greek, fulfilled In Christ.

For all the dispenational claims of "plain, literal interpretation", they are unable or unwilling to interpret these Scriptures plainly and in their literal meaning:

The Redeemed (Spiritual Israel, [Rom 9-11]) Inherit ALL the land, i.e., the New Heavens and New Earth in Eternity.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
The promise to Abraham was one of salvation, to all peoples, Jew and Greek, fulfilled In Christ. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except this is not what the text says. The text delineates three things.

1. Land (Gen 12:7; 15:7-21; 17:8)
2. Seed (Gen 12:2; 15:1-6; 17:1-6
3. Blessing (Gen 12:3)

You want to eliminate the planks of the provision and boil it down to one on the basis that Paul used one. However, Paul did not deny the others and nor should you.

The seed was specifically said to be the seed that came from Abraham's own body, something that cannot be said of you. That does not eliminate Paul's talk of spiritual seed but it did not go unnoticed by me how you (as always) skip over Gal 3:17-18 in your quotations. I will add it in here for the sake of those who are reading along:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This verse specifically speaks to several things. First, it refutes your claim that the disobedience to the Law annuled the promise to Abraham. Second, it refutes the claim that the promise to Abraham was conditional. It clearly was unconditional, being based on a promise, not a law.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For all the dispenational claims of "plain, literal interpretation", they are unable or unwilling to interpret these Scriptures plainly and in their literal meaning:

The Redeemed (Spiritual Israel, [Rom 9-11]) Inherit ALL the land, i.e., the New Heavens and New Earth in Eternity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, this is not what the text says. The text (Gen 15) defines the land and it has nothing to do with the New Heavens and the New Earth. I believe all the redeemed will inherit the New Heavens and the New Earth. That is simply not what the Abrahamic covenant was about.