Amillenialism

that river is very deep, flows into the "Great Sea" makes the water sweet in the Dead Sea, flows north and south and will water and restore that whole area into what sounds like a great area to farm. But, then again, I guess all that detail doesn't mean what it says. It was meant to be symbolic.

It seems to be a question of both and, not either or. I literal river is mentioned in Ezekiel and in Revelation. Its spiritual application is given in John. Imagine a river flowing out from the alter in the temple in Jerusalem, getting deeper and remaining crystal clear. Where ever it goes, it brings life and healing, even into the most lifeless place on the planet. What a picture of the Holy Spirit, ministering the sacrifice of Jesus from the temple of our hearts, the words we speak with his guidance get deeper and broader as time goes on, not like our own words which soon dry up. We need to pray that this river will always be clear, and not muddied by our faithlessness, so that even the most hardened person on the planet can come to new life. Why cant this both be a real river, teaching the nations the ways of God, and also a spiritual reality in the hearts of believers? If you say someone is a spiritual lion, you dont then have to declare that physical lions are whimps to secure the term for the spiritual. The reality of the physical informs the spiritual. Its a both and, not an either or.

 

I am in agreement with Matthew Henry's commentaries on the chapters, so I will direct you there.

Matthew Henry's commentaries are hardly unbiased. His commentary on Jeremiah 33. 25 and 26 reads in part:

"See how firm the covenant stands notwithstanding, as firm as that with day and night:
sooner will God suffer day and night to cease than he will cast away the seed of Jacob.
This cannot refer to the seed of Jacob according to the flesh, for they are cast away, but
to the Christian church, in which all these promises were to be lodged."

Here, he directly contradicts the Word of God to force through his own theology.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
I am premill because (as far as I can see) no other system enables God to fulfil his promises to Israel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question is not has God given up on Israel - Romans 9-11 tells us he has not. The question is, who is Israel? Romans 9-11, Gal 3-4 tell us very clearly that God's Israel are all elect and believing Jews and Gentiles, the Israel of God.

Rom 11:23 And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in,
26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Amills would also have to say that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70. Seeing how they want to put Mt 24 and Lk 21 as descriptive of the destruction of Jerusalem, Revelation 6-19 (a parallel passage) would have to be lumped in there also. However, the Amills refuse to address the previous posts concerning these passages. Instead, they cling to a few passages that (although only one correct one exists) could possibly be understood in different ways. The whole of Scripture must be the authority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The dating of Revelation is irrelevant to the amill position. Some amills hold to an early date, others do not. Some amills are partial preterists, others are not. Revelation’s dating is in no way settled. Amillennialism is not based upon the dating of Revelation but on the whole teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do not understand how the Amills cling to the fact that Christ is the fulfillment of what Paul was talking about in the Galatians passage. It is very clear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it is very clear. But, you do not see it. Galatians 3:15-18 (ESV) says:
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. [16] 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. [17] This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. [18] For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

The promise of the covenant was given to Christ through Abraham. The Abrahamic covenant is a covenant of God with God, through Abraham.

Gen 15:7-18 says:
7 Then He said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it." 8 And he said, "Lord GOD, how shall I know that I will inherit it?" 9 So He said to him, "Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." 10 Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. 11 And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 "And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 "Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16 "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—

What was done with the animals? They were cut in two. What was the purpose of this? The sign of ancient covenants often involved the cutting in half of animals, so that the pledging parties could walk between them, affirming that the same should happen to them if they broke the covenant.

Who passed between the divided carcasses? GOD ALONE. Why did God alone pass through the carcasses?
a. He was making a covenant with Himself, to and through Abraham.
b. It was a promise to Abraham and God took full responsibility for it.
c. it was not a covenant of works that Abraham could break, but a covenant of GRACE; a promise that God would fulfill.

Did God only make a covenant with Abraham? No. With whom else did he covenant? With Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham.
What great truth of our salvation does this indicate? It is a promise from God, initiated by God, fulfilled by God, made to God. it is a promise surrounded by the Trinity: the Father made the promise, the Holy Spirit acts in men’s hearts through calling and regeneration, and the Son as the Seed receives the promise of the children of Abraham.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Premillenialism is the only consistently right system of thought. Amills only prostitute the biblical record of what Christ and His apostle and the prophets before them said. I know the seriousness of these charges, but many issues have been brought up that I would like an Amill to answer. None of the above is meant to be insulting. I believe there is only one interpretation of Scripture that can be correct. I know that Premillenialism is it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Use of such ad hominems only disprove your case. The serious charges go against dispensationalism. Amillennialism may be true, or it may not. If not, then Postmillennialism may be true, or it may not. If both these are false, then historic premill is true. What all of these systems have in common – one gospel, one people of God, one plan of redemption – dispensationalism denies. While any one of the Big Three positions must be the right one, what is assuredly false is dispensationalism.

God says there is one people of God, Israel (all elect believers, of which the church is part); dispensationalism says there are two. Christ says he returns once, at the end of the age, dispensationalism says he returns twice, first invisibly, then again physically. Christ says believers are taken up on the last day, dispys invent a secret rapture, to account for the church-Israel distinction.

Yes, there are serious charges involved, but it is dispensationalism with its errant and inferential doctrines which fly in the face of Scripture’s plain teaching and canonical interpretation which must answer those charges.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Amills would also have to say that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70. Seeing how they want to put Mt 24 and Lk 21 as descriptive of the destruction of Jerusalem <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second Chris on this. You are confusing Amill's with the Preterist view of Revelation and not all Amill's s are preterists (Including me).

 

Peter's statement of Joel has several possibilities, none of which have anything to do with this.

1. It could be typical or analogical. "This is like that which was spoken." The reason for this is that Joel's prophecy was not fulfilled. The sun and moon did not do as Joel said they would. However, we are told that they would do such during the tribulation.

2. It could be partial. There was an outpouring of the Spirit and prophecy. There was no cosmic upheaval. This could similar to John 19:37 where the prophecy is fulfilled in two different events. Christ himself uses Isaiah 61 in this way in Luke 4.

However, your case is still not made since the sun, moon, and stars still do what they did then. You say there must some spiritual meaning. I don't grant that at all. I think the normal meaning makes perfect sense.

Additionally, while you want to deal with just this phrase for now, the following verses are clearly a rhetorical repetition. They say the same thing that these two verses say. They clearly cannot be ascribed to the first century.

Furthermore, you have not dealt with the "nation" idea. Your construct is based that the "nation" is no more; it is now made up of those who are not a nation. Clearly, in your construct, Israel has ceased to be a nation. It seems that once the nation is gone, the promises to the nation are no longer valid.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How could Matthew discern from the text itself that verses 15 - 17 referred to the slaughter of the innocents? From the text itself, don't forget.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is most likely that Jer 31:15 refers to the exile. By the time of Matthew it is a historical event. Thus Matthew (like his use of Hos 11:1) is drawing out similarities from an OT occasion. Πληροω is used in a varity of ways in Matthew. Grogan ("Isaiah," EBC) says Matthew’s use of πληροω is “very wide-ranging and flexible and embraces many different kinds of correspondence between and OT passage and a NT event." . Hagner says, “The quoted texts themselves are as a rule not even predictive of future events” (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 WBC [Dallas, TX: Word, 1993], p. lv).

This is not really a problem. I have never even seen anyone bring that up.

 

Can I throw out a question: how do our resident dispys account for:

1. The different terms (Jews, Hebrews, Israel)? Are these one people? Are these referring to different people?

2. James 1:1 referring to the 12 tribes as believing Christians?

I've never gotten a good answer from a dispy. But I'm willing to listen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
While any one of the Big Three positions must be the right one, what is assuredly false is dispensationalism.

God says there is one people of God, Israel (all elect believers, of which the church is part); dispensationalism says there are two. Christ says he returns once, at the end of the age, dispensationalism says he returns twice, first invisibly, then again physically. Christ says believers are taken up on the last day, dispys invent a secret rapture, to account for the church-Israel distinction.

Yes, there are serious charges involved, but it is dispensationalism with its errant and inferential doctrines which fly in the face of Scripture’s plain teaching and canonical interpretation which must answer those charges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris, Why don't you can this type of argumentation? You may disagree with DT but it is not "assuredly false." By the time you finish your MDiv, you have enough education to where you should know that. You have certainly been given the opportunity to correct some of your misunderstandings here. DT does not do most of the things that you accuse it of. DT approaches Scripture differently that you do. And whether you agree or not, DT is solidly based on exegesis. So let's can this approach of claiming the high ground while accusing your opponents of heresy and false teaching.

This type of verbiage does not help the discussion and it has not place here. Grant some respect to those with whom you disagree.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
1. The different terms (Jews, Hebrews, Israel)? Are these one people? Are these referring to different people?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would imagine they usually refer to one people. However, as with all language, context is the key. I assume you have a "smoking gun" that you want to bring up so fire away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. James 1:1 referring to the 12 tribes as believing Christians?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Refers to literal Jewish Christians who have been forced to live outside of Palestine becuase of persecution (Acts 11:19). Elsewhere, this only refers to the twelve tribes so this seems the most normal way to take it here. It would be like having a Hungarian church in NYC or a Spanish church in Miami, or a Chinese church like we have here in Detroit. The believing Jews of the twelve tribes were members of the church in the first century and probably tended to congregate with other Jews. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate to address a letter to the believing Jews in the church as spread through the Dispersion.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Another good basic link to the foundational beliefs of amil position:
Basics of Amillenialism

 

Chris, I would like to see you address the many other issues I have brought up. I agree that the dating of Revelation isn't that important and that not all Amills hold to an AD 70 position that I have mentioned. If you are so sure of your position, answer my questions and fire some of your own my way. They can all be answered biblically.

 

Pastor Larry wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Grant some respect to those with whom you disagree.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One might ask you to do the same, my friend. While you bristle at people asserting that Disp is false, you argue that Amil is false. You argue that only disp correctly interprets Scripture and is based on solid exegesis where other views are not. Why is what's good for the gander not okay for the goose?

 

Speaking of the NT phrase "twelve tribes" in James 1:1, Pastor Larry writes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Refers to literal Jewish Christians who have been forced to live outside of Palestine becuase of persecution <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then there is a difference in what the phrase "twelve tribes" means relative to its context? You'd admit this?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.L. said:
The sun and moon did not do as Joel said they would. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though the passage in Acts clearly says "this IS that," DT says "this is NOT that."

I must reject DT on the basis of it's rejection of the Scriptures.

But I bring this up to point out the NT's allegorical treatment of OT prophecies, and that I am completely in line with that hermeneutic to say that the sun, moon, and stars in Jer 31:35 are symbolic, and that they have ceased in their ordinances.

And again, Matthew clearly says the Slaughter of the Innocents was in fulfillment of Jer 31:15, but you say it was not in fulfillment, but merely something that corresponded to the event (whatever that means).

Now my point is, you CANNOT merely from the text of Jer 31 isolated from the light of the NT discern that Jer 31:15 was predictive of Herod's rage when he murdered the infants. Yet Matthew clearly says it happened "That it might be fulfilled..."

Therefore, your restriction of limiting amill's to only THAT text wrenched from the Scriptures as a whole is an illegitimate, illogical and irrational restriciton, (for the Apostles observed no such arbitrary hermeneutic) yet it is an absolutely necessary restriction to maintain DT, for DT withers under the noon-day sun of the NT like a fungus.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
One might ask you to do the same, my friend. While you bristle at people asserting that Disp is false, you argue that Amil is false. You argue that only disp correctly interprets Scripture and is based on solid exegesis where other views are not. Why is what's good for the gander not okay for the goose?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies if you read that in my posts. I do think Amil is false just like you think DT is false. However, I am not quite running you into the category of false teaching and heresy as I feel that some here are. To call DT godless, heretical, assuredly false – all charges which have been thrown about on this board by different people – is a bit beyond the pale to me. I can grant disagreement. I try not to stoop to charges of heresy and the like.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So then there is a difference in what the phrase "twelve tribes" means relative to its context? You'd admit this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don’t think so. “Twelve tribes” is pretty specific. You got something in mind here?

 

You say you don't believe "twelve tribes" to have different meanings. Yet you seem to agree with the interpretation that James's usage in James 1:1 is referencing Christian believers from a Jewish national background. Is that what the "twelve tribes" meant in the OT in your view?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Though the passage in Acts clearly says "this IS that," DT says "this is NOT that."

I must reject DT on the basis of it's rejection of the Scriptures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DT does not say "This is not that." YOu know that. Come on now. DT argues, as I have said for a typological or a initial or partial (not double) fulfillment, something clearly testified to in Scripture in other places. Clearly the Spirit was poured out, literally. Men and Women did prophesy, literally. There were dreams and visions, literally. Yet you want to say that this is literal but the sun and moon portion is allegorical or spiritual. That is not sound.

You cannot simply arbitrarily decide to switch hermeneutics. To say that the first is literal while the second is spiritual is not good hermeneutics. I don't think that's what Peter did and I don't think that is what we should do. Peter is referring to the inauguration of the last days. The point that Peter is getting to is the last phrase: All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I bring this up to point out the NT's allegorical treatment of OT prophecies, and that I am completely in line with that hermeneutic to say that the sun, moon, and stars in Jer 31:35 are symbolic, and that they have ceased in their ordinances.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the NT treats prophecy as allegorical. No one has yet to show a convincing place where there is not another explanation that accounts for the issues. You are in line with an allegorical hermeneutic to be sure; I am not sure it is a biblical one. Your hermeneutic requires some literal and some figurative with nothing but your own mind to determine which is which. That is one problem that I have: People who practice the hermeneutic you do seem to have no way of determining which is which and why it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And again, Matthew clearly says the Slaughter of the Innocents was in fulfillment of Jer 31:15, but you say it was not in fulfillment, but merely something that corresponded to the event (whatever that means).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read my post? I made it clear and gave an example of the wide use of πληροω in Matthew. It does not always mean a prediction coming to pass. I cited the sources. Look them up, read them, and see what you think. They convinced me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore, your restriction of limiting amill's to only THAT text wrenched from the Scriptures as a whole is an illegitimate, illogical and irrational restriciton, (for the Apostles observed no such arbitrary hermeneutic)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did no such thing. I did not limit amills to that text. I said that is a very troublesome, and IMHO, insurmountable text. I did not wrench the text from Scripture. I read it right out of Scripture and discussed it in its context. It seems that you are the one who wants to change what it says and ignore its context. I cite Jer 31 and you talk about Joel 2 and Matt 2, two unrelated, though easily explainable passages.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>illegitimate, illogical and irrational ... for DT withers under the noon-day sun of the NT like a fungus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the kind of language that is wholly unnecessary. It does not further the discussion. It reminds me of when people run out of substance ... they resort to rhetoric. Let's talk the issues if we are gonig to do this.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
you seem to agree with the interpretation that James's usage in James 1:1 is referencing Christian believers from a Jewish national background. Is that what the "twelve tribes" meant in the OT in your view?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. In this usage, "twelve tribes" refers to their ethnic background, just like American, Spanish, Brazilian, etc. It separates them from others. "Twelve tribes" is not referencing their spiritual status per se; it is referencing their national status. It is the way it is used in the LXX as well as in other NT passages. This is the position defended by Hiebert, Martin (WBC), Kent, Davids (NIGTC), Burdick (EBC). The recipients are likely those who were in the church at Jerusalem but were driven out by persecution (thus the Diapora). They had a connection with James who was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem and thus he is writing them a pastoral letter.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.L. said:
You cannot simply arbitrarily decide to switch hermeneutics. To say that the first is literal while the second is spiritual is not good hermeneutics. I don't think that's what Peter did and I don't think that is what we should do. Peter is referring to the inauguration of the last days. The point that Peter is getting to is the last phrase: All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a second. Peter said "This [the Baptism of the Holy Spirit witnessed by devout Jews on the Day of Pentecost] is that."

So, it is not I who said Joel's prophecy concerning the sun and moon is allegorical. Peter said it. Your division of the quote into "now" and "then" sections is what is arbitrary. I at least have the words of Peter. "This IS that..."

You said in another place: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Proper interpretation must be derived from what the author intended the original reader to understand; it is based on the words, syntax, idioms, and grammatical structures of the text itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This cannot be taken any other way but to mean that Jer 31 must be interpreted by itself and how a Jew would see it knowing nothing of Christ and Him crucified. What you mean by the author is not the Holy Spirit, but Jeremiah "Unto whom it was revealed, that NOT unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." (1 Peter 1:12)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Wait a second. Peter said "This [the Baptism of the Holy Spirit witnessed by devout Jews on the Day of Pentecost] is that."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what is "that"? It is the prophesying, etc. -- the miraculous demonstration of supernatural power.

What makes your "allegorical" interpretation of 1 of the 4 parts of the prophecy better than my "then and now" interpretation understanding 4 of the 4 parts to be literal? Peter did not say that Joel's prophecy was allegorical. It appears to me that he understood it to be literal and that is why he applied to a situation that sounds exactly what you expect the prophecy to be like, except for one point, the changing of celestial objects in the last days.

The last days began at Pentecost. The prophecy describes the whole of the last days which will not end until the second coming. I also gave other examples of where "now and then" fulfillment is used. So it is not unprecedented and it keeps us from arbitrarily assigning "allegory" to part of a prophecy while admitting "literal" in the same prophecy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This cannot be taken any other way but to mean that Jer 31 must be interpreted by itself and how a Jew would see it knowing nothing of Christ and Him crucified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes ... but the prophecy very clearly had messianic implications. So there is no conflict here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What you mean by the author is not the Holy Spirit, but Jeremiah ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that the Holy Spirit led Jeremiah to write what he did. There is a divine human confluence in the authorship of Scripture so that, once again, there is no conflict. Had the Holy Spirit intended something else to be communicated, he would have led Jeremiah to use different words. As it is, and as we understand all communication to be, the author uses the words that best convey what he intends to communicate. Thus the Holy Spirit led Jeremiah to write exactly what the Holy Spirit intended for him to (2 Peter 1:19-21).

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]