Amillennialism Debate -Part Three

Great post trailblazer. It is also worth noting what Walvoord teaches concerning the supposed earthly millennial reign.

Walvoord writes in Major Bible Prophecies that David will reign as coregent with Jesus Christ in the millennial kingdom. He writes [page 393] “Though many have tried to explain away this passage [Ezekiel 37:24-25], it obviously requires the second coming of Christ, the establishment of David’s kingdom on earth, the resurrection of David, and David’s sharing the throne of Israel as coregent with Christ.”

I don't know but that seems to be a little heretical to me. Man coregent with God! That is about as far as the RCC has gone with Mary!

 

QUOTE BY DR. BOB....tb - agree. So those falsely claiming amil theology is biblical should apologize to everyone for their error? ...END QUOTE

This speaks for itself. I mistakenly used that tongue sticking out icon once and apologized for it. You used it intentionally.

The moderator DHK is denying that he turned our "informing" and "challenging" posts into insults. We are owed an apology.

 

There is a vast difference between historic premillennialism and dispensationalism, though dispensationalists apparently choose to ignore it. Furthermore, I have never called someone a Darbyite unless I thought he espoused the false doctrine of the removal of the Church prior to the so- called GRReat TRribulation.

Obviously I totally disagree with your assertion that amillennialism is the weakest of the eschatological doctrines. It is the historic Baptist docrine, along with some postmillennialists such as B. H. Carroll.

Furthermore, I notice that you, and I assume all the moderators, endured, with much suffering I suppose, the continued insults by DD, EE, and others and took no action until the word Darbyite was used. I also notice there has been no public rebuke of anyone except trailblazer and me!

 

Simple. The deceased Saints are reigning with Jesus Christ in Heaven at the present time awaiting the Second Coming. That is the doctrine of most amillennialists though some believe it refers to the reign of the Church on earth. However, there is a vast difference between what Walvoord claims and the way pre mills interpret Revelation 20:4. Walvoord's claim is akin to the claim by the RCC regarding Mary.

 

[previous post by Larry;..." And there was certainly no need to stick your tongue out at me."]

Trailblazers response to that post?..." Actually, I will apologize for the "tongue" icon - but with an honest explanation. When I selected it, there was no tongue visible - just a smiley icon. Honestly! Human mistake only!”

[previous post by Larry…”WE are not changing "inform" into "insult";]

Another double standard here? So, is intentionally demeaning legitimate and no apologeties necessary for Pastors?

 

Simple. The deceased Saints are reigning with Jesus Christ in Heaven at the present time awaiting the Second Coming. That is the doctrine of most amillennialists though some believe it refers to the reign of the Church on earth. However, there is a vast difference between what Walvoord claims and the way pre mills interpret Revelation 20:4. Walvoord's claim is akin to the claim by the RCC regarding Mary. </font>[/QUOTE]Sooooo, exactly what are they ruling over in heaven? and why 1000 years?

Tread-softly with sentences like your last one. You may be lucky since I don't know what Walvoord claims.

 

Quote me. Stop making false accusations without proof. I warned you to stop callying pre-tribbers Darbyites, and "informed" you that by doing so you were "insulting" most people on the Board (including Dr. Bob as you can now see). I did not insult you when I gave you an illustration. I will say it again. "Two wrongs do not make a right." Do you disagree with that?
DHK

 

Now that I've had the A-mil positions explained, I can see where it is quite weak. I'm going to study this more, but from what I've read, it appears to be twisting scripture around to make it read they way you want it to. IMHO.

 

Dr Bob,

A-mil is the weakest of the four views of eschatology, the least biblical, and associated only with the most liberal of Baptists.

Amill is in no wise a "weak view". It is in fact the view of some of the most astute and often conservative reformed (and even RCC) scholars.

It is a view which assumes a nonliteral hermeneutic for parts of the Bible - and that scares alot of conservatives away.

In my opinion any eschatology that involves a "rapture" is weak - but I will admit that is my opinion.

 

ANY PASTOR THAT INTENTIONALLY STICKS HIS TONGUE OUT AT ANONE FOR ANY REASON SHOULD NOT BE IN THE PULPIT IF HE HASN'T GOT THE COURAGE TO APOLOGIZE FOR IT!

 

OH HOW YOU TWIST IT AROUND! IT WASN'T FUNNY WHEN I MISTAKENLY POSTED IT AND IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE FUNNY IN THE ABOVE POST! YOU MAY CALL YOURSELF "THE BOSS" IN A PRIVATE MESSAGE BUT PASTORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOVE THAT KIND OF CHILDISH BEHAVIOR.

 

[quote by Larry...] "Icons (smilies/graemlins) are shown to LESSEN the tension, to make posts more enjoyable, to see emotions. The "tongue-sticking" is NOT an evil thing....Grow up." [end quote]

I think people can figure out things for themselves that there is a double standard here.

 

DR Bob,

Well Amill baptists may have some bad company - but that has nothing to do with those of us who arrive there by sound theology.

Consider G.K. Beale, Anthony Hoekema, and Richard Bauckham - top notch scholars.

Consider Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer. Yes they are RCC but ask any NT protestant scholar if they are not men of impeccable scholarship.

Amill is NOT a WEAK position. It is entirely cogent given the Biblical as well as salient extrabiblical writings.

It does however part ways with the literalist hermeneutic, which is itself a product of human preference. Thus it is automatically seen as unpalatable to those who have, a priori, decided that they are literalists, before examining whether or not the literalist hermeneutic is the best. Amill is the most consistent position if one has a thorough knowledge of biblical theology (not just the works of other literalists).

So it is a NONLITERALIST position, but not a weak one. Your dismissal of Amill is no more valid than my dismissal of rapturist theology.

 

It is interesting that Paul calls gentile Christians in Galatia the Israel of God and warns them not to succumb to the judaizers who would them be circumcised.