Amillennialism Debate -Part Three

I repeatedly asked on the previous thread that adherents of Darbyism/Scofieldism/classic dispensationalism/ultra dispensationalism, whichever they prefer, quote just one verse of Scripture that teaches a pretribulation rapture. They have not done so yet. They are apparently unable to do so. Strangely they keep referring to Scripture they have supposedly posted and exegeted. Did they get lost in the system? Can I blame it on the computer?

 

Maybe this sounds stupid guys (and gals), but I have not done a lot of study of end-times prophecy.

Can one of you who hold the Amil belief please provide me with a short overview of EXACTLY what you believe?

In other words, when and how does the tribulation work? ..when and how is the millinium kingdom? ...I assume that the coming of Christ is at the same time as the rapture based on what I'm reading? Can you please help me understand your specific positions on each of these items, as compared to--say, the LeHaye interpretation of end-times?

I'm not debating. Based on your posts, I am missing some of your core beliefs.

Thanks,

 

That's an interesting point Old reg.

While I am amillenialist I can certainly appreciate the scriptural support for historic premillenialism. I do however think that taken as a whole the scriptures point to a "thousand year reign" as figurative.

What I cannot appreciate is the "rapture". While there are many verses that support the position of historic premillenialism I cannot find one verse that point CLEARLY to a rapture.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 speaks about being caught up in the air to be with the Lord forever. No mention of how this temporally relates to a subsequent literal 1000 years or a time of judgement. This verse was intended to comfort the Thessalonian Christians in that the faithful dead would not "miss out".

On the subject of the millenium I will respect the position of my chiliast brothers, even though I disagree.

I will likewise echo the challenge to find any scripture giving compelling support for a rapture.

 

Hey there!

40 pages and we haven't convinced ONE about the truth of scripture????

Are we missing the mark? Or, what?

I must admit, the last 20 pages were very disheartening. Gave up and signed out. I'd spend hours at a time trying to make certain that what I was posting was scripturally sound only to have it just blown away without being read, let alone taken seriously. I ended up just accepting the fact that there has always been those that "don't have the ears to hear" even if Christ himself were sitting in front of them just as there were those back then that didn't either. I am even more aware of how he must have felt when He sat on the Mount of Olives and "wept."

I think I'll observe in the background a bit. DPT and OldReg...you two are great. Right on.

 

Solomon the Preacher

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Paul the Preacher

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Carl the Preacher

It's a waste of time to deal with a fool or a heretic more than twice based on the PREACHERS' statements as found in Pro. 14:7 and Titus 3:10.

 

Well, maybe just one more time....

Philip, I think if you start for yourself and look up the word "tribulation" in a concordance and then look at the context it is used in each verse you should begin to see that believers, OT and NT, have always gone through tribulation. Therefore, why take them out of any other tribulation. The Pre-mils and the dispys have that confused with God's wrath. It isn't "wrath". God's wrath is upon the unjust at the end of the world.

 

PHILlIP

For an excellent view of the 3 views as compared to Amillenialism, go to;

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml

 

However, this does not delineate the three major a-mill belief sets.

 

Solomon the Preacher

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Paul the Preacher

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Carl the Preacher

It's a waste of time to deal with a fool or a heretic more than twice based on the PREACHERS' statements as found in Pro. 14:7 and Titus 3:10. </font>[/QUOTE]Carl the Preacher?

You prove my point. Instead of quoting Scripture, even one pssage, to support a pre GRRReat TRRibulation "so-called rapture" you hand out insults. Just quote one passage of Scripture that proves a pre GRRReat TRRibulation "so-called rapture".

Anyone can post insults, even EE and DD. In fact I believe that DD has you and EE beat but perhaps he has more practice!!!!!!

 

Yes, you do keep repeating your montra (we keep showing verses - duh). But you only dissed me once for using the scripture from the
King James Version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611).

/note for those who don't know 'montra'.
This term comes from Eastern (Asia) religions
and refers to a repeated prayer - usually
repeated until god delivers./

 

Two of the three branches of a-mill are described in
2 Peter 3:4.

1. post-trib a-mill - says that there will be a physical
return of Jesus but a spiritual reign of Christ
- they are looking for Jesus to come back after the
tribulation period

There are two branches of a-mill that do what
2 Pter 3:4 says is wrong:

2. Peterist a-mill - Jesus will not physically return
in the future, He returned in the past

3. Mystic a-mill - The Second Advent of Jesus is a
deep spiritual truth, not a physical thing

Five major Eschatologies compared:

Pretrib pre-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues &lt;-- you are here
1. rapture/resurrection
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

Postrib pre-mill outline:

0. church age continues &lt;-- you are here
2. Tribulation time
1.3. Second Advent of Jesus event
(this is one event with the rapture/resurrection)
4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

Postrib a-mill outline:

0. church age continues - is the same as: &lt;-- you are here
2. Tribulation time - is the same as: &lt;-- you are here
4. spiritual MK=millinnial kingdom &lt;-- you are here
1.3. Second Advent of Jesus event
(this is one event with the rapture/resurrection)
5. new heaven & new earth

Peterist a-mill outline:

0. church age continues &lt;-- you are here
1. rapture/resurrection &lt;done happened
2. Tribulation time &lt;-- or maybe you are here
3. Second Advent of Jesus event &lt;done happend
4. spiritual MK=millinnial kingdom &lt;done happened
5. new heaven & new earth &lt;-- or maybe you are here

Mystic a-mill outline:

0.-5. - Ummmmm-waaaaaa!

 

Thanks Ed, I think the scriptures that you gave me and have listed here seem to cover the rapture and tribulation with clarity.

I'm surprised (no I'm not......) that they can't see this. This sounds like other false arguments; especially the remark "Rapture doesn't appear in the scriptures." What an argument.

 

Charles

I am amillennial in my eschatology. Amillennialism or post millennialism were the predominant historic Baptist belief until the Scofield bible crept in unawares. [I fear that the dispensationalists have left their mark on the HCSB.] Though I do not agree with Historic/Covenent premillennialism I have no real problem with it since they have a correct doctrine of the Church.

My problem with the dispensationalists is two fold.

The first is their assertion that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, failed, and established the Church instead. Their doctrine of a parenthesis Church, or worse an intercalculation, is an unbiblical and repugnant doctrine.

In His prayer for the Church as recorded in the 17th chapter of the Gospel according to John Jesus Christ declares:

John 17:4, KJV I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

This Scripture clearly and decisively refutes the claim of dispensationalists that that Jesus Christ failed to accomplish the mission for which He was sent and that He instead established the parenthesis form of the Kingdom, the Church, which is unknown in the Old Testament. Dispensational writers tend to ignore the message of John 17:4.

If Jesus Christ came to establish the ‘earthly’ Messianic Kingdom, He would have established it, otherwise He would not have been able to say to the Father I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. To claim that Jesus Christ came to establish such a kingdom but failed in that task and established the Church instead is to deny the words of Jesus Christ Himself. To do so is to call into question either the truthfulness and deity of Jesus Christ or the sovereignty of God. The truth of the matter is that the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews was for the simple reason that He did not fulfill their carnal desire for an ‘earthly’ Messianic Kingdom that would throw off the yoke of Rome.

My second problem with those who follow after Darbyism/Scofieldism/dispensationalism is that they label anyone who disagrees with their false doctrine as heretics or unsaved or fools or gnostics or romanists, etc., etc.

Frankly I will try to discuss the errors of the Darbyite eschatology but their belief in this error really is not going to change God's plans for the Second Coming. It may well be that none of the four major doctrines of the Second coming are correct though I believe amillennialism is best supported by Scripture.

However, I believe that the doctrine of the Church as promulgated by Darbyism/Scofieldism/dispensationalism is, as I stated before, unbiblical and repugnant because it denigrates the work of my God and my Savior, Jesus Christ, who purchased His Church with His own blood [Acts 20:28].

 

Yes, you do keep repeating your montra (we keep showing verses - duh). But you only dissed me once for using the scripture from the
King James Version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611).

/note for those who don't know 'montra'.
This term comes from Eastern (Asia) religions
and refers to a repeated prayer - usually
repeated until god delivers./ </font>[/QUOTE]I hesitate to accuse anyone on this thread of an untruth but there has not been one passage of Scripture posted that supports a pre GRRReat TRRibulation so-called rapture of the Church. In fact the word rapture does not even appear in Scripture.

EE if you are going to try to insult me at least spell your words correctly. It is mantra not "montra" . At least DD was crude enough to try to insult me directly by calling me a gnostic heretic. Let me give you some advice and this goes for you, DD, and Carl whatever. You cannot insult me regardless of what you say, I just consider the source and feel sorry for you. Your insults only show the weakness of your argument.

Years ago in high school I had a dear English teacher who stated that those who use profanity only show the limits of their ability. Could the same be said about those who only hurl insults?

On two occasions on the previous thread I posted the various insults that hat been hurled against those who disagreed with your position. I hope that is not the case on this thread.

 

quote from this place:

//We should understand that in all these different views of eschatology, it is not simply a matter of opinion about chronology, it's a matter of different hermeneutics and of different types of exegesis.//

Here are the key verses and key terms that
i've found from discussions in the matter:

1. The antecedent of the two 'he's in
Daniel 9:24. Some say the Messiah, some
say the Anti-messiah (people of the coming
Prince) - quite a difference.

2. The word KAI in Greek and the word 'AND'
in English both have multiple functions
(sometimes the KAI is just ignored in English.

2A. the AND starting Matthew 24:31
2B. the AND in Revelation 20:4 seperating
IMHO two seperate groups of elect saints
(others say they AND unites two equal sets
/(sets with the same members/ )
2C. The AND in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 - does
the AND connect or seperate :
'the coming' and 'the gathering'?

3. The FIRST in Revelation 20:5.
Is that 'FIRST' or 'FIRST and only'?


Yep, these simple 5 uses of 3 words delinate
nearly all the variances of the eschatologies.
Wonder why we couldn't split up on hard
words like 'sanctification' and 'justification'?

 

Your descriptions are innacurate! But then so is your doctrine of eschatology.

 

OldRegular: "My problem with the dispensationalists is two fold.

The first is their assertion that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, failed, and established the Church instead. Their doctrine of a parenthesis Church, or worse an intercalculation, is an unbiblical and repugnant doctrine."

Unfortunately for you, no dispensational here beleives that.
WOuld you debate with us here instead of the dispies
somewhere else. Thank you. Salvation of the mostly Gentiles
of the church age was always God's plan. Salavation of
a maximum number of Jews in the Tribulation PERIOD is
a part of God's plan also.

 

Your comments are moot because
nobody else will even offer to define the
terms.

 

OldRegular: "My second problem with those who follow after Darbyism/Scofieldism/dispensationalism is that they label anyone who disagrees with their false doctrine as heretics or unsaved or fools or gnostics or romanists, etc., etc."

Can you hold the scarsam till DD comes back? Thank you.