Daniel's 70th week and the misuse of nonpremills

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Tim:
Have you ever considered the possibility that the O.T. is primarily typological?

I find that possibility unsupported by the text. I do not (neither does any dispensationalist) deny that there are some types in the OT. But to say "primarily typological" is to reduce the inspired account of human history to far less than the title "Holy Scripture" will allow, IMO.

There are actually very few types in Scripture, much less than most, especially most dispensationalists, will allow. I laugh out loud at some of the "types" that have been discovered. It is nothing more than a hyperactive imagination desparately in need of a message.

I think the OT actually intended to communicate real things based on itself. Those words and texts mean real things that can be determined from the words that the Holy Spirit inspired these prophets to write. I just can't find the way to recharacterize all these texts to make them fit a particular theology. I say, "Let them stand on their own and preach what they say."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ken H:
There was a large segment of the early church that was premillennial but they were what we would categorize as historical premillennial, not dispensational premillennial.

But the early church really had no systematized eschatological positions as we do today. They simply expected Jesus to return during their lifetimes.

But I would think we would have to admit the caveat that the "historic premilleniallism" that was undeniably the position of the early church was also an undeveloped premillennialism. In other words, they had not systematized it as we have. As church history has shown the development of doctrines over a period of time, we should expect the same with eschatology. Its full development did not come for a number of centuries because of the priority of other topics. So I think your statements here actually support the whole process of dispensationalism.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
So I think your statements here actually support the whole process of dispensationalism.

I understand your well-made point.

Actually, I don't think any of us know in detail how God will wrap up this age as prophecy is symbolic. The Jews in the first century who knew the Scriptures backward and forward didn't understand that the Messiah would come as a babe in a manger.

Fortunately, there is an accurate eschatology that has been mentioned before by others. It is called pan-millennialism - it will all pan out in the end by God's redeeming power.

 

[LadyEagle]

But, Ken Hamilton, I invite you to check this out:

Replacement Theology become the position of the Church during the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-430), who popularized it in his book The City of God....

Almost all students of the early church agree that Premillennialism, or Chiliasm, was the most widely held view of the apostolic church. Philip Schaff, the noted authority on church history writes, "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age [A.D. 100-325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, . . . a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius."1 Premillennialism began to die out in the established Catholic Church during the time of Augustine, though it has always survived as a Church doctrine. Even when it has not been widely known it survived through "underground" and "fringe" groups of Believers. The last 200 years have seen the greatest development and spread of Premillennialism, which, like the early church, recognizes a future glorious hope for literal Israel. Beginning in Britain and spreading to America, consistent Premillennialism, known as Dispensational Premillennialism, has come forth as a major theological view in the Church.

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/replace.htm

Looks to me like Augustine was wrong on at least two points - Replacement Theology and helping Premillenialism to die out as the prevailing interpretation of Scripture.

Well, he knows the truth now.

 

[KenH]

Thanks, SheEagle9/11.

Eschatology is not that big of an issue with me anymore. It was for a time last year as I was doing some reading on the subject as you know from some discussions we had.

I am more than willing to simply let everyone have their personal opinion on which view is correct. I see no need to try to convince others that my view is the correct one. We just all need to be careful and not overemphasize eschatology and certainly not allow it to divide our fellowship in Christ.

 

[LadyEagle]

Agreed!

Yes, Ken, I remember our discussions well! Especially the one about the white horses!

See you around the Board!

 

[Tim]

Tim's quote:
Have you ever considered the possibility that the O.T. is primarily typological?


Preach's response:You mean like the virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, crucified, and ascended prophecies? Oh wait, those have to be literal, but the rest have to have some mysterious fulfillment in the church. Right.

--Preach, when you don't have the literal presupposition that disp. demands, you're able to allow the N.T. to explain which O.T. prophecies are literal and which are figurative. That's all I'm doing. Tim


Dr. Bob's response:Hmmm. If we cannot win by countering arguments, and dealing with a literal passage, we change from logic to "mysticism" or "spiritualizing" a passage.

That is not a great hermeneutic. (Actually, we dispensationalists have been accused of it on more than one occasion.

--Dr. Bob, First of all, who says I didn't win my argument? I don't think all the judges of our debate are died-in-the-wool dispensationalists. And since when are spiritual things not important to understanding a passage of Scripture? You may think it's not a great hermeneutic, but I repeat, the N.T. uses it often..Tim


Pastor Larry's response:I find that possibility unsupported by the text. I do not (neither does any dispensationalist) deny that there are some types in the OT. But to say "primarily typological" is to reduce the inspired account of human history to far less than the title "Holy Scripture" will allow, IMO.

There are actually very few types in Scripture, much less than most, especially most dispensationalists, will allow. I laugh out loud at some of the "types" that have been discovered. It is nothing more than a hyperactive imagination desparately in need of a message.

I think the OT actually intended to communicate real things based on itself. Those words and texts mean real things that can be determined from the words that the Holy Spirit inspired these prophets to write. I just can't find the way to recharacterize all these texts to make them fit a particular theology. I say, "Let them stand on their own and preach what they say."

--Again, I've never questioned the historicity of the narrative accounts, but prophecy, by its very nature as a mystery as yet not fully revealed will contain much symbolic language. As far as there BEING few types, rather, few types are ALLOWED in your system. I agree that many simply imagine them without proper N.T. guidance to reign in their imaginations--but they are there nonetheless IMO. Christ explained such things to the disciples on the road.But it required the opening up of their eyes. Tim

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at
Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the
scriptures the things concerning himself.. . .
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within
us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the
scriptures? . . .
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their
understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,