all alone amillenialist

Actually, it does matter. May I respectfully suggest you read "There Really Is A Difference" by Renald Showers.

 

don't feel all-alone...you're actually in good company. Most scholars, including most evangelical scholars and those in SBC seminaries, are amill proponents.

I certainly sympathise with the amill position and find it quite tennable. And when you think about anyone claiming to be "pan" millenist is in all actuality an amillenist

 

While there is indeed a 'system' put forth by Darby, and there are similarities between that of Darby and that of Gaebelein/Scofield (Can't leave out old Arno C. Gaebelein while we do the "guilt by association", and "character assassination" bits here), when you say

you very much oversimplify this idea.

'Popularized', by these two individuals? Definitely!! All because of them? Not a chance! Some of these ideas (written down, anyway) go all the way back to Ephraem of Syria (who thought some of what he had to say was more important than a Biblical text, apparently ), and even to Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, and Papias, to name some. Isaac Watts sketched a similar scheme a century and a half before JND, and the varied so-called Progressive Dispensationalism schemata urged by some today, notably Bock and Blaising, among others, bear little resemblance to Darby, at least in particulars.

Ed

 

No it doesn't.
It teaches a chance for those born after, not an "extra" chance for unbelievers at the time of the rapture.

And for the person who said that Christ's return can't happen etc. without such and such...
The rapture is not a return of Christ, it is a catching away of his own, not the second coming of Christ.

 

Personally, I suggest you re-read that Scripture, in the context of the entire book of Romans . I don't see anything in the verses you referred to about 'becoming' a Jew, there. The context is the Jews, and Paul says one thing - "is". Unfortunately, you said another - "became". Where Paul did speak about the Gentiles, he said nothing of this idea from "the Law", but said "the Gentiles, who do not have the Law". I see nothing that he ever said they NOW have it, in fact just the opposite.

Ed

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

I'll just copy this from an article my pastor wrote a few weeks ago.
http://www.kingdombaptist.org/ka288.cfm

It is certainly true that Augustine was in great error, and should not be trusted as a worthy teacher of Scriptures. But Corner needs to realize that his argument of "guilt by association" actually bites his own hand! Augustine confessed that he had abandoned the premillennial view that had been strongly advocated by the Christians before him. Justin Martyr had called premillennialism (i.e. chiliasm) the view held by all the right-minded Christians in his early day! In contrast to this view, Augustine later adopted a figurative, and/or extremely typological manner of interpreting the Scriptures. In his "City of God," he writes:

"Those who, on the strength of this passage [Revelation 20], have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years, as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period...there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years; and that it is for this purpose the saints rise, viz., to celebrate this Sabbath. And. this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for I MYSELF, TOO, ONCE HELD THIS OPINION. But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians." (Augustine)

Of course, the early Christians did not believe, as Augustine implied, that the future Millennium would be "carnal" or ungodly. They rightly believed that it would be contrasted to this present time of temptation and suffering. It will be characterized as a time of joy, as opposed to this time of cross bearing. It is a time of reigning, as opposed to this time of suffering (2 Timothy 2:12, Luke 22:28-29). Augustine was simply reflecting (and watering) the growing asceticism of his day in preparation for Rome's later monkery, etc.

This change in Augustine's doctrinal view of Revelation 20 colored his whole understanding of the kingdom; and this, in turn, affected his understanding of the Gospel. David R. Anderson writes:

"...when Augustine became amillennial, this major change in his eschatology affected other parts of his theology, namely his soteriology...That chiliasm was the norm in eschatology up until roughly A.D. 400 is no debate among church historians."
("The Soteriological Impact of Augustine's Change from Premillenialism to Amillennialism, Part One; 2002; Faithalone.org)

 

Once again, I think you are reading into the text, something that is not there, for this again says nothing about 'becoming' a Jew.
So would you explain, being as Abraham was not "a Jew", to begin with, and where we "let scripture interpret scripture" (sic) ("'Scripture' should be capitalized!" - Language Cop] we see that the 'Abraham's seed, to whom the promise is made', is not Israel, but Christ. So certainly, if we are Christ's, we are 'Abraham's (spiritual) seed', and not only heirs, but "joint-heirs". Now once again, what does all that have to do with a (former) Gentile "becoming" a Jew. Oh yeah! Now I r'members!! I do know, actually!

Anyone else can do as they choose. Me - I don't like being in that crowd!


Ed

 

Amen, Sister I Am Blessed 16 -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbsup:

Deacon jd: //My real problem with premillenialism is that it teaches a second chance for those who are not saved at the return of Christ, and that my friend is going to cost men their very souls.//

Unfortunately for you, this idea is a MINOR idea not held
by the majority of premillennialists. The whole batch of
post-tribulation only resurrection/rapture believers don't
believe this. Many of us pretribulationists think that
very few, if any, gentiles will be saved during the
Tribulation Period. Saved gentiles for sure won't be
making a fool of the Antichrist like some millionare pretrib
fiction authors suggest. Personally I believe that
gentiles Messanics will be only saved by having their]
heads chopped off.

 

Gina L.

Didn't you know that Christ already fulfilled the law at Calvary. We are no longer under 400 or 500 laws anymore. There is not a single verse anywhere in New Testament say the law shall be restoration again beyond LOrd's return and the end of the age.

Matt. 25:1-13 proves us, there is no another second chance for salvation after Christ's coming.

There is so many passages or verses in BIble teaching us, there shall be no second chance of salvation beyond death(physical), and Lord's return too.

Pretrib is a false teaching, it does teach there is another second chance for a person to be saved during tribulation after rapture. But, there is no scripture to prove it.

Matt. 24:37-41; Luke 17:34-37 both clear tell us, once Christ comes, all unbelievers shall be taken away, no more another second chance for salvation for them to repent. It will be too late for them.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Mat 25:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day,
nor the houre, wherein the Sonne of man commeth.

This wonderful pre-tribualation rapture/resurrection
of the church verse shows that we cannot know the
hour (proper time) nor the day (proper time)
when Messiah Jesus will come to get His
Church Age saved elect saints.

Strangely enough, some of the failthful serving Jesus a-mills

will be serving Messiah Jesus as reward for their faithfulness
in the Physical & literal Millinnial Messanic Kingdom :saint:

 

First, I didn't say I was pre-trib. I said the mil. is a time when the temple will be restored, sacrifices in place once again, and that pre-mil doesn't teach a second chance salvation. Man dies once, and after this the judgment.

It will be another dispensation. And different than what we have now.

We see this in Ezekiel and Revelation, occuring during the 1,000 years, when the temple will be restored and the river flowing through the city. Compare both and you'll see the double meanings.

We are not in an era of peace. We are not in the millenial reign. The catching away hasn't happened, the shortening of days of tribulation for the sake of the elect hasn't occurred, and the temple hasn't been rebuilt.

Go read the newspaper. We're not in a time of peace, we're not vegetarians again, and the animals aren't at peace or their nature's anything but still defensive.Conclusion? We're not in the millenium. Very simple.

 

Deacon: It seems to me that the premillenialists use a lot of terms not found in scripture such as millenium,church age,trubulation age, rapture,etc.

Gina: Note that the opening post by an amil used the term millenium. I am using terminology common to Christianity. While the terms may differ from those found in the scriptures, they carry the same meaning.
If it makes you feel better feel free to replace my words with these:

Millenium = thousand years
Tribulation age = time of tribulation
Rapture = catching away

I never used the term "church age".

Deacon: The only place that I find a thousand years mentioned in reference to a specific time period is in Rev.20
Never base a whole belief on one scripture it is like a stool with only one leg it is not very stable. No where in the old testament will you find the rapture or the millenium mentioned, it is always the day of the Lord. Why would Scripture refer to the third coming(like there really is one) if it is to come some 1007 years after the rapture, and never mention what happens in between?

Gina: Around seven verses in that chapter (Rev 20) are dedicated to the concept of a one thousand year reign.
I also find it interesting that one day of the Lord is as one thousand years. I have wondered is this one thousand years could the the Day of the Lord. I'm not saying it is, I just find it interesting.

It is not simply one scripture, it is a number of verses within that chapter, and as I mentioned before I believe it is also spoken of in Ezekiel. Why don't you dedicate a bit of time to reading the chapter of Revelation 20, then go back to Ezekiel and read chapters 40-45 and come back and let me know if you see a connection there? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd honestly like to know you read them together and if you can understand where I'm coming from when I say I believe they're both referring to the thousand year reign and the reopening of the temple. (while you're there also note the river and its location and compare it to Rev)
That is something I'd like to hear from all amill's about after it's read.

What is the "third coming" you're talking about?
I may be confused here, but I thought the Day of the Lord was the second coming. (if you're confused and think I believe in a secret rapture, you're mistaken and I didn't think I gave that impression anywhere, in fact in the last few years I've stated quite openly a number of times that I don't believe in such a thing) And it seems that Rev 20 and a good five chapters of Ezekiel, at minimum, talk about what happens during that thousand years.

Where are you getting a third one? Who said that, and where?