Amillennialism Debate - Part Four

DPT. I left the conversation long ago because of the difficulty in answering everyone of Trailblazer's points because of time constraints.
I was also concerned about the tone. What was the deal anyway about Darbyite's? I never understood the name calling. Even a fellow premill's tone concerned me.
But I am writing now to commend you ("Give honor to whom honor is due") you have taken a Christ-like attitude in seeking to keep it civil.
As far as the topic is concerned, I always seek to take each passage literally UNLESS there is overwhelming, compelling, reason(s) to seek another explanation for a passage. I do not see such compelling reason in Rev 20.
But apart from the thousand years mentioned in Rev. 20, there are just so many other compelling reasons, in Scripture, that makes the premill position the best fit.
But this is echatology. The Divinity of Christ, the virgin birth and other essentials are not in question here. Amill's are brothers. That's the way I see it.

 

Watchman: "But I am writing now to commend you ("Give honor to whom honor is due") you have taken a Christ-like attitude in seeking to keep it civil."

Amen, Brother Watchman -- Preach it !

DeafPosttrib always seems ready to explain the faith that
is within him.

 

posted March 03, 2005 02:06 PM by Dr. Bob                       
The dispensational paradigm was the product of pre-millennial teaching that has been part of the church since the NT. It is not a "new" teaching, but a synthesizing grid to help folks understand pre-mill thinking.

Amill was predominant in the church as the only teaching of Catholicism (and its reformation offshoots). It is the teaching of almost all cults. That is not really the source I personally would like to herald as "best".

If it is Catholic doctrine, it is suspect to most Baptists for certain sure!

I for one am thankful for men like Walvord or Scofield and Dallas Seminary (with whom I've worked in the past) to help those who have believed in historic pre-mil thought to see its overlay in this manner.

 

Everything I've read about the Amill position has them all over the place so I guess I really don't understand thier position very clearly.
I would like to see something short and sweet that is fairly clear and definitive on the Amill position. Maybe it could be done in 20 paragraphs or so.

 

Buy the way I've been reading all four parts of this debate and am now more confused than ever about the Amill position.

 

Anybody know the score?

 

'day' = the appropriate time
'hour' = the appropritate time

John 6 'last day' = John 5 'hour'.

Neither delineate a specific measurable amount
of time. The First Resurrection denoted in
Revelation 20:5 lasts for 1 day = 7=years:
a resurrection/rapture at the start of the
Tribulation day and another resurection
(probably with a small rapture) at the end
of the 7-year-day. The unjust will be resurrected at a day and hour of God's plan
probably after the physical Millinnial Reign
of Christ.

DeafPosttrib: "Why cannot you accept clear teaching from Jesus Christ saying that our resurrection shall be on the last day of the age?"

I accept it. I also accept that that day will be
7-years long. Being the border day, it is
both inside the age (the last day) and outside
the age (an inter-age period).

 

EE

'1000' = the appropriate time. You left that out

Based on all uses of the number in the bible that is the most likely meaning of it.

I have a question. You readily accept day and hour in the above passages to be figurative, but not millenial reign in Rev. 20. What do you base that on? With the exception of Johnn 6:54, the above passages are very straitforwad statements with no hint that they should be taken any way but literally. Revelation 20 is full of spiritual symbols. Isn't it more likely that the language of Revelation 20 is more symbolic in nature while the language in John is more literal?

 

Oh and one more observation

James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble

I hope we all bear in mind that Christians are supposed to be humble, preferring others over themselves. If all our conversation is characterized by grace, then I think we will all get along in these discussion much better.

In Christ

 

Thank you.

Dave: "You readily accept day and hour in the above passages to be figurative, but not millenial reign in Rev. 20."

You haven't kept up with what i've said. Go find it yourself.

Dave: //1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble//

If you are over 65-years-old i yield to your
elderness.

 

EE

Sorry, I am not over 65 and will defer to you on that level

The point I was trying to make (I guess I should have bolded it) was the God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humility is difficult to maintain but if we all practiced it, then a spirited debate would not turn into a mean-spirited debate as this has in past threads.

I was only trying to add my voice to DeafPostTrib's.

As far as not keeping up, I will look back and see what I missed.

Dave

 

You left out the most significant part of your statement about amillennialism as noted below. Ther reader can judge your opinion of amillennialism for himself.

posted March 03, 2005 02:06 PM by Dr. Bob                       
"The dispensational paradigm was the product of pre-millennial teaching that has been part of the church since the NT. It is not a "new" teaching, but a synthesizing grid to help folks understand pre-mill thinking.

Amill was predominant in the church as the only teaching of Catholicism (and its reformation offshoots). It is the teaching of almost all cults. That is not really the source I personally would like to herald as "best".

If it is Catholic doctrine, it is suspect to most Baptists for certain sure!

I for one am thankful for men like Walvord or Scofield and Dallas Seminary (with whom I've worked in the past) to help those who have believed in historic pre-mil thought to see its overlay in this manner."

 

Tha;nk you Dave. I'm 61. wait 6 montns and
i'll be 62

I see you are a peacemaker. (peacemaker is
better than elder, all it takes to be elder
is to WAIT)

Matthew 5:9 (KJV1611 edition):
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall bee called the children of God.

May Iesus be gloried in your peacemaking
Brother Dave, Child of God.

 

The dispensational paradigm was the product of pre-millennial teaching that has been part of the church since the NT. It is not a "new" teaching, but a synthesizing grid to help folks understand pre-mill thinking.

Interesting thought. I agree that some of it is not new teaching.

I also agree with the concept that it is a "synthesizing grid" - but I think to a certain extent it is a synthesizing grid created so that many scriptures can be interpreted literally. Without such a system the literal interpretation of many verses in Revelation leads to confusion.

In the amillenial position these scriptures are taken in the appropriate OT context and thus they are easily related to one another without the modern fundamentalist constraints that insist on literal interpretation.

 

Charles Meadows: "In the amillenial position these scriptures are taken in the appropriate OT context and thus they are easily related to one another without the modern fundamentalist constraints that insist on literal interpretation."

Lovely. The three major a-mill positions
properly interpert the Old Testament. Unfortunately they leave much to be desired
about the New Testament.

BTW, nobody has in these four threads every
explained to me SO I CAN UNDERSTAND about the
three major banches of a-mill:

1. post-tribulation rapture a-mill
2. peteristic a-mill
3. mystic a-mill

(not that any holing to one can explain
the other. any one of the three would be good.)