Amillennialism

[blackbird]

Hello everyone.

Myself used be premill for many years. Now I am Amill.

I would like to explaining you why my beliefs has changed. Back in year 2000. I was studying Eschatology on rapture timing. At first, I was pretrib in my beginning Christian life back to 1989. I though pretribulational is biblical. Because I was invited to an independent fundamental baptist church by old friend. IFB people saying, "I am a Bible believer", because they use KJV, and claim, they always follow the Bible 100% with doctrines. I was learning pretribulationism, because of what Baptists teaching. I thought it is biblical and truth.

One day, I visited old deaf couple's house(they were member of that Baptist church, which I was used as member there before). They asked me, when rapture will occurs? I told them, rapture before tribulation. They told me, they believe rapture after tribulation. I was shocked of them. Because I noticed almost all Baptists believe in pretribulation. I did debate with them on rapture. They want me to read 2 Thess. 2:1-3. I said to them, ok, I am reading it and sign language same time while reading it, as I said to them, "When I read them, I MUST agree and follow what God's Word saying."

When I read 2 Thess. 2:1-3. Verse 3 that hit me so hard. I understand verse 3 very clear. I cannot argue with verse 3.

Then, they want me to read Matt. 24:29-31. Then, I told them the same thing.

When I read Matt. 24:29-31. Verse 31 that hit me hard. I told them, that verse 31 tells the same thing with 1 Thess 4:16-17 about gathering.

I told them, I have to study Bible and commentatories on rapture at home, I will be right back and tell them what I have study them.

I have been studying Bible and books on rapture spent many hours all day till 1:30 a.m. Finally, at last I determined left pretrib camp for good, and realized that Bible is clear telling us that we must face tribulation first before our gathering. I left pretrib camp in year 1992.

But, I wa still premill during in that period.

Till year 2000, I started to digging deeper on God's word on Eschatology.

While studying Bible. Matthew 25:31-46 caused me trouble the mostly whilst myself was premill. Matt 25:31-46 tells me clearly, when Christ shall come with angels, angels will separate believers aparted from unbelievers from all nations. And bring them to face before Christ sits on throne. This is very picture of Great White Throne. And there is no "a thousand years" mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46.

Also, another passage in John 6:39.40. 44, and 54; that passage bother me mostly. Christ ells us, the resurrection shall be on the LAST day.

Pretrib teaching that the resurrection shall be 7 years earlier before Second Advent. That is about 2,700 days aparted between "Rapture" and "Second Adevnt". But, that passage clearly telling us, the resurrection shall be on the LAST day. I understand, "last day" simple mean it will be on the last day of humankind era- "end of the world", that shall be follow at Second Advent.

Even, also, John 6:39,40, 44, & 54 did not say, there will be 1000 years aparted. That passage telling us, resurrection shall be on the LAST day. I notice in the four gospels, Christ never teaching them of 'a thousand years'. Clear, Christ doesn't teaching premill doctrine.

Also, in John 5:28-29 telling us very clear, WHEN the "hour" is come, both believers and unbelievers in their graves, all shall hear Christ's voice. All shall be raise out of graves, some go into everlasting life, some go into everlasting punishment. This is very clear of ONE resurrection event, and one judgment day. This passage didn't saying anything of 'a thousand years'.

I better stop this post. I better continue discuss this post into part two in another post. To be continued...

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

DPT--------dude---------how come you left the POST camp for the AMIL camp??

Your friend,
Blackbird
aka Bro. David

 

[DeafPosttrib]

blackbird,

I doesn't saying that I left POST camp for AMIL camp. I mean that, I left PREMILL camp for AMIL camp. Understand clear?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[OldRegular]

Great response MB!

 

[Pink]

It is funny that the ones that consider themselves the most inteligent theologically accept a catholic position(amil). The ones that hold to a very literal view of theo hold to a very aligorical view of "last things". T his is an "oxymoron" for sure.NO SELF RESPECTING CALVINIST SHOULD BE ANYTHING BUT PRE-MILL.:BangHead:

 

[Rippon]

It is funny that the ones that consider themselves the most inteligent theologically accept a catholic position(amil). The ones that hold to a very literal view of theo hold to a very aligorical view of "last things". T his is an "oxymoron" for sure.NO SELF RESPECTING CALVINIST SHOULD BE ANYTHING BUT PRE-MILL.:BangHead:

Your very avatar is a picture of Arthur Walkington Pink.He held to the Amil position.Earlier in his life he was a passionate dispensationalist.

 

[jcjordan]

Your very avatar is a picture of Arthur Walkington Pink.He held to the Amil position.Earlier in his life he was a passionate dispensationalist.

I was thinking the same thing!!

 

[skypair]

None of these statements are Trinitarian views. These are heretical statements.

Dear Marcia,

Are you familiar at all with the passage of time? I am "four square" trinitarian so long as there is a kingdom of heaven (kingdom of Christ) here below and a kingdom of God (heaven) above. Dispensationally speaking, that is how God revealed Himself to us in these last days (NT).

Regarding the New Heavens and New Earth (the big "tribal merge" of KoH-KoG :laugh: ), I don't know that there is any "orthodoxy" regarding Trinity or Oneness. If you can get me information on that, I would appreciate that much more than I do your lack of comprehension of dispensational truth.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Your POV is that God does change then.

No, Christ, the Son, changes. Remember He "made Himself lower than the angels?" Remember, He became a baby and grew up going through all the CHANGES in life that we do? Yes, He set His face "like flint" to the cross ---- once His offer to bring in His kingdom among Israel was rejected.

But God exists in perfect heaven. It never changes nor does His mind, His Spirit. His truth will always be the same.

strange I distinctly remember that Christ said He left to go prepare a place for us that where He is we may be also.

That's "Oneness-speak," MB. Watch out! The SON said He was going to prepare a place for us. It was GOD the FATHER'S plans that I was talking about.

1Cor 15:28. does not say all that. About 90% you added your self.

Stop, already! Stick to 1Cor 15:28 and tell me how YOU interpret what Paul said there.

Ground control to Captain Tom;;;;; You need to come back to earth and suffer the stark reality of life:laugh:

It's "Major Tom," BTW ... but today "lake of fire" looks like a sun. Tomorrow it may be revealed to be something more literal. I asked your indulgence on some of this so that you could try to imagine the "larger than life" truth.

He explained Him Self as God in this statement; Joh 14:9 -- "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

Joh 14:10 "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Absolutely!! The adult Christ is and always will be the physical appearance of the Father and the Spirit! But this is something the Catholics, for instance, have not grasped. Over the 3rd door of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is a representation of Christ in the MK as a baby sitting on Mary's lap!! If you want to know what God is NOT going to look like, I would refer you to that!

God is one God not temporarily three.

Oneness, not trinity? Better go hide -- marcia's gonna get you! :laugh:

The mystery is that he is all in one single God Jesus Is not separate neither is the Spirit. And God never changes. He has always been a trinity, and always will be.

See, here. You are just blurting out stuff without thinking about what you are saying. Jesus never changed? "One single God" is OT -- trinity is NT. God didn't change there but His revelation of Himelf certainly did. How do you know God will always be in trinity? Prove that.

skypair

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, Christ, the Son, changes. Remember He "made Himself lower than the angels?" Remember, He became a baby and grew up going through all the CHANGES in life that we do? Yes, He set His face "like flint" to the cross ---- once His offer to bring in His kingdom among Israel was rejected.

But God exists in perfect heaven. It never changes nor does His mind, His Spirit. His truth will always be the same.

That's "Oneness-speak," MB. Watch out! The SON said He was going to prepare a place for us. It was GOD the FATHER'S plans that I was talking about.

Stop, already! Stick to 1Cor 15:28 and tell me how YOU interpret what Paul said there.

It's "Major Tom," BTW ... but today "lake of fire" looks like a sun. Tomorrow it may be revealed to be something more literal. I asked your indulgence on some of this so that you could try to imagine the "larger than life" truth.

Absolutely!! The adult Christ is and always will be the physical appearance of the Father and the Spirit! But this is something the Catholics, for instance, have not grasped. Over the 3rd door of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is a representation of Christ in the MK as a baby sitting on Mary's lap!! If you want to know what God is NOT going to look like, I would refer you to that!

Oneness, not trinity? Better go hide -- marcia's gonna get you! :laugh:

See, here. You are just blurting out stuff without thinking about what you are saying. Jesus never changed? "One single God" is OT -- trinity is NT. God didn't change there but His revelation of Himelf certainly did. How do you know God will always be in trinity? Prove that.

skypair

Christ is unchangeable. You should read Ireaneaus Against Heresies also look in depth at what a changable Christ means. The incarnation granted Jesus Humanity and by humanities nature he grew up but that does not equate to changeable. Remember he is homoosious with the father not homoiosious.

 

[DHK]

No, Christ, the Son, changes. Remember He "made Himself lower than the angels?" Remember, He became a baby and grew up going through all the CHANGES in life that we do? Yes, He set His face "like flint" to the cross ---- once His offer to bring in His kingdom among Israel was rejected.

But God exists in perfect heaven. It never changes nor does His mind, His Spirit. His truth will always be the same.
skypair

What do you mean: "Christ, the Son, changes...But God ...never changes.
Is this a denial of the deity of Christ?
Is Christ, eternally God or not?

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
"I the Lord change not."

When Christ came to this earth, he at all times was fully man and fully God. At conception he was man as well as God. In the womb he never gave up his deity and yet was human at the same time. In infancy he was still divine; still the God of the universe. He remained deity at all times: from eternity unto eternity he always was, is and always will be God. He changes not. In "time" he took upon himself the form of a man. He entered into our world. He lived, and died, and rose from the dead.

During this time, He laid aside purposely many of his divine attributes. He rebuked Peter, telling him to put up his sword, and reminding him of the thousands of angels that He could have called from Heaven. He had that power. But he volitionally laid it aside. He laid aside many of his attributes while in the womb, while in infancy, while as a child, and even as a man. He chose not to exercise them, though he could have. At the same time He still remained deity--completely deity.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
--Christ in the flesh speaks of his omnipotence here, to Nicodemus. While on earth he speaks of his presence in heaven. He is God, and always has been.

The pre-incarnate appearances of Christ were just that: God come in the flesh. They could be no other. Any thing less than that is a denial of the deity of Christ.

 

[MB]

No, Christ, the Son, changes. Remember He "made Himself lower than the angels?" Remember, He became a baby and grew up going through all the CHANGES in life that we do? Yes, He set His face "like flint" to the cross ---- once His offer to bring in His kingdom among Israel was rejected.

The Bible is clear, that Jesus Christ is one with the Father. IOW's they are the same being. One God with three different extensions of Himself. We do not have three different gods who work together. Jesus Christ is God and He changes Not.

But God exists in perfect heaven. It never changes nor does His mind, His Spirit. His truth will always be the same.

God isn't an it!!!! He's God!!!! Christ never changes because He is God. His coming was planned before the foundation of the world. So was the new covenant. There was no change because He exist as all three.

That's "Oneness-speak," MB. Watch out! The SON said He was going to prepare a place for us. It was GOD the FATHER'S plans that I was talking about.

Obviously you didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Stop, already! Stick to 1Cor 15:28 and tell me how YOU interpret what Paul said there.

Your interpretation is the problem. I don't interpret Scripture as saying something other than what it says. I depend on the revealing of scripture from the Spirit. Interpretation is why we have so many denominations. Man's interpretation is why so many are decieved.

It's "Major Tom," BTW ... but today "lake of fire" looks like a sun. Tomorrow it may be revealed to be something more literal. I asked your indulgence on some of this so that you could try to imagine the "larger than life" truth.

I gave you a lower rank than the song.
Imagination is your misunderstanding. Imagination is the lie men want to believe. We need to stick to the facts.

Absolutely!! The adult Christ is and always will be the physical appearance of the Father and the Spirit! But this is something the Catholics, for instance, have not grasped. Over the 3rd door of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is a representation of Christ in the MK as a baby sitting on Mary's lap!! If you want to know what God is NOT going to look like, I would refer you to that!

I'd wager that we will all know who He is when we see Him. Although those who have imagined Him to look a certain way will find just how wrong there imaginations can be.

Oneness, not trinity? Better go hide -- marcia's gonna get you! :laugh:

Well I'm not worried about Marcia's opinion be it for or, against.

See, here. You are just blurting out stuff without thinking about what you are saying. Jesus never changed? "One single God" is OT -- trinity is NT. God didn't change there but His revelation of Himelf certainly did. How do you know God will always be in trinity? Prove that.

skypair

God will always be what He is. He said "I change not". Therefore He has always been a trinity and always will be, Regardless of which covenant we talk about, What age or, in eternity.
MB

 

[skypair]

The Bible is clear, that Jesus Christ is one with the Father. IOW's they are the same being. One God with three different extensions of Himself.

3 "extensions." Great! It is no longer possible for you to express it as the doctrine of the trinity does -- 3 PERSONS. I doubt very much that you understand the rest of the concept any better than you do this one.

Jesus Christ is God and He changes Not.

Deny history all you want, MB. It only makes your view that much less credible. The fact that Jesus was physical God and was born, grew up, left the earth with nail-scared hands, etc. But yet you say Jesus Christ never changes -- that's incredulous!

God isn't an it!!!! He's God!!!!

Nor is He an "extension."

Christ never changes ... There was no change because He exist as all three.

I hope you are thinking that He changed at the cross when He bore our sins and was "forsaken" by the Father -- cause that's the ONLY way you have to heaven!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Remember he is homoosious with the father not homoiosious.

Splain the difference, please.

skypair

 

[Thinkingstuff]

3 "extensions." Great! It is no longer possible for you to express it as the doctrine of the trinity does -- 3 PERSONS. I doubt very much that you understand the rest of the concept any better than you do this one.

Deny history all you want, MB. It only makes your view that much less credible. The fact that Jesus was physical God and was born, grew up, left the earth with nail-scared hands, etc. But yet you say Jesus Christ never changes -- that's incredulous!

Nor is He an "extension."

I hope you are thinking that He changed at the cross when He bore our sins and was "forsaken" by the Father -- cause that's the ONLY way you have to heaven!

skypair

There was never a time when Christ was not. To say otherwise is not correct and anathema sit.

 

[skypair]

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

My understanding of this is that Christ fulfills all the aspects of salvation from the beginning of creation to the end. But even as we look at that, He fulfilled them differently for those who looked forward to Him than He did for those who look back to Him.

"I the Lord change not."

Says exactly what I say. There is no change in the Father Who Who exists in the eternal kingdom of God and no change in the truth that He reveals to us. The change is that in creating time, He also created a kingdom wherein all things change. Physical Jesus lived and died, did He not?

What I am saying is that when we all get to New Earth, there's no more physical change in Jesus nor in us outwardly. We will change spiritually, ostensibly by eating of the "tree of life." But there will be no death, no corrupting sin, no progeny, etc.

During this time, He laid aside purposely many of his divine attributes.

That is, He CHANGED!! How can you not admit that?

skypair

 

[Thinkingstuff]

jesus eternally proceeds from the father. There was never a point that he was not. Jesus is unchanging. The incarnation does not change this fact. Ever hear of an interesting phenomina call Christophonies?

 

[Marcia]

Dear Marcia,

Are you familiar at all with the passage of time? I am "four square" trinitarian so long as there is a kingdom of heaven (kingdom of Christ) here below and a kingdom of God (heaven) above. Dispensationally speaking, that is how God revealed Himself to us in these last days (NT).

Regarding the New Heavens and New Earth (the big "tribal merge" of KoH-KoG :laugh: ), I don't know that there is any "orthodoxy" regarding Trinity or Oneness. If you can get me information on that, I would appreciate that much more than I do your lack of comprehension of dispensational truth.

skypair

Skypair, you said clearly that one day there would be "no more Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That is not a Trinitarian view. That is a view that Oneness followers hold who believe that either Jesus is the Father and is Jesus only for a time, or who believe that God the Father is really Jesus. In these views, the Father is subsumed into Jesus or vice-versa. The theology on the Holy Spirit is murky; often the HS is a just a force or power of God or Jesus.

You also said that the preincarnate Jesus was not God. This is denying the eternal deity of Christ. I don't know what else to say if it's not obvious to you that these are not biblical views.

 

[Pink]

AMILLENIiALISM

Rippon: Pink did alot of things in the last days of his life that was not right. For the last ten years he didn"t darken the door of a church. He fought against Hyper-dispy. People that knew him better than you or me said he died a dyspy. But lets say you are right that just means he fell into error in the last days of his life just like many theos do that we have heard of in these days.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon: Pink did alot of things in the last days of his life that was not right. For the last ten years he didn"t darken the door of a church. He fought against Hyper-dispy. People that knew him better than you or me said he died a dyspy. But lets say you are right that just means he fell into error in the last days of his life just like many theos do that we have heard of in these days.

Murray and Belcher (I know the former) in their biographies of Pink evidence that they knew him better than most.That Pink died as a "dyspy" is an urban legend.

I don't know how much of an error you think being an Amill is is;but he did didn't "fall into it" in his last days. He started to denounce it in a series of articles in the early 1930's if my memory serves correctly.

He didn't just fight against Hyper-dispensationalism (although Ironside did);he wrote polemically against the garden-variety.

I suppose you are a big fan of :"The Redeemer's Return"?

 

[J.D.]

Rippon: Pink did alot of things in the last days of his life that was not right. For the last ten years he didn"t darken the door of a church. He fought against Hyper-dispy. People that knew him better than you or me said he died a dyspy. But lets say you are right that just means he fell into error in the last days of his life just like many theos do that we have heard of in these days.

Ummm...a very trucated version of the events in Pink's life. He didn't just quit going to church - he was repeatedly dismissed from the pastorate by first arminian and then hypercalvinist congregations. He lived in a day in which a good reformed Baptist church was hard to find - much like today. He even attended a Free Presbyterian church for a while but that didn't work out because he was congregational. As a preacher/teacher, he couldn't just sit in a church without being a source of controversy. His refusal to compromise led to fewer and fewer invitations to preach in Brittain's liberal-leaning churches, and returning to the U.S. was not feasable. Him and his wife faithfully had house church which included people from the community throughout this period. He believed in the Lord's Day and observed it to the end of his life. He never stopped proclaiming the Gospel through whatever media was available to him.

And as for Dispy'sm, he was influenced by it early on but rejected it later and even wrote extensively against it.