Amillennialism

Amillenialism certainly a valid interpretation. Since it's not a matter of dictrine, and since it's not covered in the five baptist disctinctives, it's certainly acceptible for baptists to believe in amillenialism if they so choose.

 

Somewhere I read that ol' Johnny Calvin was amil. Is this true?

 

Dear Friends,

Most bible believing evangelical Baptists are pre-millennialists. But that is of no significance. The majority may be wrong. The majority of voting members of a Baptist church or any church can be just as wrong as the crowds of united Presbyterians who approved of Gay/Lesbian ministers or the crowds that voted for Barabbas and against Jesus in Jerusalem during the Passover of 32 A.D.

As for amillennialism in Baptist circles the real puzzle is why Bible believing Baptists do not believe that the Apostle John's words in Revelation 20 were inspired. Why do they tear these 6 verses out of their Bibles and drop them in the dumpster? FIVE TIMES IN SIX VERSES the Holy Spirit states that a thousand year period lies ahead of us ruled over by Christ/Messiah and His overcoming saints glorified out of this age.-Rev.20:1-6 Is this a problem for them? And if so, why?

Any evangelical who denies the truth of these 6 verses in Revelation 20 should be trembling in their boots before the face of Almighty God. Why? Because that person deep down has a hostile attitude to the throne of David. That is the root of antisemitism. And he or she has a bad attitude to the coming literal thousand year rule of Messiah.

Here is some further info on the Millennium and the Messiah. During the 19th century all the kings of Europe would rise to their feet when the "Hallelujah chorus, by Handel, was sung. Would that we evangelicals today had the same respect for the coming ruling Christ as our coming Messiah that they had back then. We are a rebellious and stiff necked people. We prefer to do business with the princes of this world rather than do business with the Prince of Peace. He will establish HIS Kingdom ruling over this entire earth from Jerusalem in the glorious future Millennium of Messiah. Hadn't we better get on HIS side?

Huge chunks of Old Testament poetry tell the story as well. But churchy powers don't want to hear of it. They do not want to be embarrassed by having to mention a returning Jesus before the kings and rulers and bankers and businessmen that rule over this world and the godless rabble that vote them in. Westerners are a mob. A gang of people who claim to be Christian but who don't want Jesus to come any closer to them and their "human affairs" than their stained glass reveries in Sunday church between 11:00 and 12:00.

The Roman Catholic Church is Amillennial. So are the old Reformed churches. A worthy Baptist who reads and believes his Bible should have moved on beyond these old camps. He should have departed from this dark pagan medieval anti Israel, anti-throne of David, anti cosmic Christ doctrine that denies Jesus will come again to rule on this earth for a thousand years.

http://endtimepilgrim.org/millennium.htm

Blessings to the Bereans,

Gavin

 

I guess I'm an anti-semetic pagan.

 

Gavin,

Why do you have to attack amils to promote your own beliefs? It's not a convincing way to win an argument.

You know we interpret Rev. 20 differently--you and I have discussed it. We don't throw any of God's Word in the dumpster any more than you do.

And guilt by association just doesn't stand up. The Catholics also believe in the Trinity--so should we then reject it? The Jehovah's Witnesses are all premillemial, does it taint that eschatology?

Consider your arguments more carefully and more of us would engage in meaningful discussion with you.

In Christ,

Tim

 

[ June 04, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

True amillennialism doesn't believe a millennial reign of any kind. The idea that the 1000 years mentioned in Revelation 20 is running along side the current age lines up with preterism(sp) or partial-pretrism.

I would be interested in seeing how many baptist pastors are amillennial as oppossed to the those in the pew that are premill. What would have happened if instead of a premill study bible coming out first (Scofield) someone put out a amill study bible for people to follow. The convoluted premill scheme needed a study bible just to follow what no one really took serious until that time and even after. Had Scofield not put out his study bible premill would have gone the way of the horse and buggy.

 

I never really could make sense out of the whole premill scene, especially since it was considered heresy by those in our Baptist past (ie.Spurgeon).
Maybe this is a good time for all Baptists to ask themselves what they believe and why. It's true Scofield, Dakes etc have destroyed a lot of Baptists and it is just plain silly the way some of us claim Irving, Darby, Lacunza, Miller, White and Russell as heretics but yet accept their teaching on so great a subject without even batting an eyelash! I'm amill and proud of it and I do believe all of the Bible including Revelation. I just don't accept the pre-crowd's commentary on the Bible as a whole and on the Second Coming in particular.
Your brother
John

 

C. H. Spurgeon was a Premillennialist.

"If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God. Some think that this descent of the Lord will be Post-millennial — that is, 'after the thousand years' of his reign. I CANNOT THINK SO. I conceive that the advent will be PRE-millennial — that He will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth. But whether or no, this much is the fact, that Christ will suddenly come, come to reign, and come to judge the earth in righteousness." [from Justification & Glory MTP Vol 11, Year 1865, pg. 249, Romans 8:30 (age 31)]

 

It is possible to premill and not be dispensational. If he was premill I am sure he was not dispensational considering all the comments he made that where negative about the teachings of Darby.

 

Yes, it's called Historic Premill of which Spurgeon was and many of the early Church Fathers. Historic Premill is not dead but is overshadowed by disp. Premill. As for me, I find a mixture of Amill and Postmill to be the best theory.

 

C. H. Spurgeon was a Historic Premillennialist, and like the brother already stated, so were many of the early church fathers.

 

Kiffin,

Why do you believe that a mixture of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism to be the best theory? What exactly would you call that?

 

I'm not sure Primitive Baptist...Hmmm, Maybe A Optimistic Amill or a Pessimistic Post mill (maybe not ) Well, I'm not sure. I find great truth in both systems and I call my self a PanMill (It will all pan out)

 

Ignorance?

 

If John writes in revelation that there is a (literal?) 1000 year reign.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


and Peter states that one day with the lord is as a thousand years. and a thousand years as a day....

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Is the millinuem really 1 million years ?
(1 day x 1000 years)( x 1000 years)

or one day?



Me2

 

Or maybe Peter wasn't talking about the length of the millenium but rather God's view of time (to give us an idea).

 

There goes another attack by a dispensational premillennialist.

I find it truly amazing that the church has never been anywhere near agreement from the post-apostolic age forward on eschatology and yet a new idea in eschatology was formed about 1830 - dispensational premillennialism - and then popularized in the late 1960s - 1970s by the likes of Hal Lindsey, and all of a sudden one must "bow the knee" to that one interpretation or else be labeled a non-Bible believer and an anti-Semite.

So I guess according these extremist dispensationalists everyone before 1830 didn't believe the Bible and was anti-Semitic.