For amillenial brothers....thoughts?

[Yeshua1]

The Kingdom of God did not come in its fullness at that time, as jesus said that it was not yet the time, and peter confirmed that it was not the time to have it ushered in right then, for if had been, there would have beem the kingdom restired to israel, and the whole earth would have had the messianuc age come in!


How can you keep seeing Joel as fully fulfilled, or that national Israel forfeitrd the Kingdom forever, as very clear God used their hardness to bring Gentiles unto salvation, but once done dealing with them, will turn back towards the redemption of the jewish peoples!

 

[kyredneck]

The Kingdom of God did not come in its fullness at that time, as jesus said that it was not yet the time, and peter confirmed that it was not the time to have it ushered in right then, for if had been, there would have beem the kingdom restired to israel, and the whole earth would have had the messianuc age come in!

Scripture please!

How can you keep seeing Joel as fully fulfilled, or that national Israel forfeitrd the Kingdom forever, as very clear God used their hardness to bring Gentiles unto salvation, but once done dealing with them, will turn back towards the redemption of the jewish peoples!

11 .......we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:
18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.
21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 2

 

[OldRegular]

How can you keep seeing Joel as fully fulfilled, or that national Israel forfeitrd the Kingdom forever, as very clear God used their hardness to bring Gentiles unto salvation, but once done dealing with them, will turn back towards the redemption of the jewish peoples!

They didn't really forfeit the Kingdom; GOD took it!

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

But I don't believe national Israel ever really had the Kingdom. They were simply the vessel through which God would accomplish the Incarnation and fulfill the promises of Genesis 3:15 and subsequent promises of the Redeemer!

John 18:36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[Yeshua1]

They didn't really forfeit the Kingdom; GOD took it!

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

But I don't believe national Israel ever really had the Kingdom. They were simply the vessel through which God would accomplish the Incarnation and fulfill the promises of Genesis 3:15 and subsequent promises of the Redeemer!

John 18:36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

And peter said that if israel would have accepted messiah as being Jesus, he would have ushered in the messianic Age then, but that waits until His second coming, when israel returns, and that glory will be greater than the kingdom now restored at that time, correct?

When jesus comes back, national israel shall be saved in that time, and their reinstitution back to God will be a glorious thing for all the earth!

 

[DHK]

[FONT=&quot]John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
"His own" being the nation of Israel, had not only rejected Christ, but the Kingdom that he would have given them had they accepted him. But they rejected him instead.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?[/FONT]
--Even at the time of His ascension the disciples were still anticipating the Kingdom. It was not to come. Not yet. In fact Jesus rebuked them telling them they had better things to do.

[FONT=&quot]Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.[/FONT]
--The Kingdom could wait. In the following verse he once again gives them the Great Commission. That was to be their focus from here on in.

 

[Yeshua1]

[FONT=&quot]John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
"His own" being the nation of Israel, had not only rejected Christ, but the Kingdom that he would have given them had they accepted him. But they rejected him instead.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?[/FONT]
--Even at the time of His ascension the disciples were still anticipating the Kingdom. It was not to come. Not yet. In fact Jesus rebuked them telling them they had better things to do.

[FONT=&quot]Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.[/FONT]
--The Kingdom could wait. In the following verse he once again gives them the Great Commission. That was to be their focus from here on in.

Jesus knew they were asking it in terms as a Jewish understanding of messianic reigning , basically asking Him if God would usher in the Messianic Age right then, but he told them not yet, and that their program was to be evangelists in his name!

Just cannot see where jesus and later the Apostle confirmed God had made a final judgement against Israel, and that ALL of her blessings passed over to the church at that time!

 

[DHK]

Scripture please!

Consider the Scripture you posted.

11 .......we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What meaneth this?[/quote]
What does this mean? They were speaking in tongues. That is what the question refers to. What does the miracle of "speaking in tongues" mean?

13 But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine.

And this is the answer of the ungoldy Jews. They attributed that Godly gift of speaking in tongues to drunkenness. This is solid evidence that the context is narrowed to speaking in tongues.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Peter says these that speak in tongues are not drunk. He is not referring to the other phenomena. The context is the speaking in tongues alone.

16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh:

Two things to note here.
1. The last days started with Pentecost and continue until now and will continue until the Second Coming.
2. He did not pour his Spirit out on ALL flesh. There is not a person on this board that can honestly admit to that fact, not honestly and rationally.
NOTE:
*This was the Feast of Pentecost--ALL present were Jews.
*Out of approximately 100,000 Jews, only 3,000 were saved. God poured out His Spirit on 3,000 out of about 100,000 Jews. That is not ALL Flesh. It is not 100%. That is what the prophecy says. Like it or not it says ALL flesh, not some flesh or a few flesh, but ALL flesh.
*They did come from "every nation" so to speak. In fact there are about 13 different nations mentioned. That is because it was one of the major Jewish feasts. Jews from all over--as far as Egypt, Arabia, Crete, etc. came to celebrate this feast. They came from different parts of the known world to celebrate the Feast held at the Temple.

And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:
18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

Some of them did, but only a very few. It was a partial fulfillment. The complete fulfillment of this prophecy is still future. It will be completely fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom to come.

19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.

None of this ever happened. It can't be documented. You can't go back in history and find it documented by anyone: Josephus, Tacitus, or any historian.
It is foolish to say that because it is there it happened. That is what cults do.

For example:

After 14 years of studying the Bible, William Miller became convinced that Christ would return in 1843. When Miller
announced April 3 as the day, some disciples went to mountaintops, hoping for a head start to heaven. Others were in graveyards, planning to ascend in reunion with their departed loved ones. Philadelphia society ladies clustered together outside town to avoid entering God's kingdom amid the common herd. When April 4 dawned as usual the Millerites were disillusioned, but they took heart. Their leader had predicted a range of dates for Christ's return. They still had until March 21, 1844. The devout continued to make ready, but again they were disappointed. A third date--October 22, 1844--was set, but it also passed.
Today in the Word, December 20, 1991.

When the Preterist or Amillennialist claim that these things already happened with no proof they are no better than the founders of the SDA who claimed that Christ has already come. They don't have the evidence.

21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 2

This again is a partial or incomplete fulfillment.
Did you ever look at the actual prophecy that Peter was quoting, and then consider the audience to whom he was preaching to?

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
--He is speaking to the Jews and only to the Jews, both in Joel and in Acts.
The Jews knew that.
The context is the Kingdom, specifically the Millennial Kingdom.
Whosoever shall call upon him shall be saved. And that is exactly what shall happen when Christ comes for His elect (the Jews) at the end of the Tribulation just before He ushers in the Millennial Kingdom. As a nation they will turn to him and believe on Him.
That "remnant" shall be saved.
So then, all Israel shall be saved."
Then this prophecy will be fulfilled in its entirety. Now it only has a partial fulfillment.

 

[OldRegular]

And peter said that if israel would have accepted messiah as being Jesus, he would have ushered in the messianic Age then, but that waits until His second coming, when israel returns, and that glory will be greater than the kingdom now restored at that time, correct?

You need to prove that by Scripture!

When jesus comes back, national israel shall be saved in that time, and their reinstitution back to God will be a glorious thing for all the earth!

Stephen said of the Jews just before they killed him:

Act 7:51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

What is going to change that?

**********************************

You are totally ignoring the passage I presented earlier about the Kingdom of GOD.

John 18:36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.[/QUOTE]

You deny this truth and say His Kingdom is of this world. Nonsense!

Answer this! When Jesus Christ returns it will be in the full Glory of the Godhead. Now tell me how humans are going to live in His presence!

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeshua1

The Kingdom of God did not come in its fullness at that time, as jesus said that it was not yet the time, and peter confirmed that it was not the time to have it ushered in right then, for if had been, there would have beem the kingdom restired to israel, and the whole earth would have had the messianuc age come in!


How can you keep seeing Joel as fully fulfilled, or that national Israel forfeitrd the Kingdom forever, as very clear God used their hardness to bring Gentiles unto salvation, but once done dealing with them, will turn back towards the redemption of the jewish peoples!

You are asking more questions, but you have not answered those asked of you;


you made this statement:

Quote:
And you cannot call those prophecies as all symbolic, as the Bible stated that there were to be signs in the heavens and in the sky and on the earth...

I then asked you this-
really? I know for a fact you have not looked this up. Go back to my lengthy post with DHK.....look up the terms and figures used.

here is the language from Isa34....the destruction of Edom[idumea]...tell me which parts of the language is literal?
2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.

3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved,

and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:

and all their host shall fall down, a
all the stars fall down to the earth...one star would burn us to a crisp...

do not run away and hide.....answer this for us It is easy to comment as you do...but if you want to comment, you need to face the music when called upon.....[

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

You are "smart" enough to declare a Biblical system as failed, but not "smart" enough to defend another system as Biblical.

I do not know how to build a yacht, but if I was onboard one and it had leak after leak....I could say the hull was failing and abandon ship:laugh:

I am in between positions and still learning and sifting through material and ideas about those views. I have not made dogmatic statements about them, but every time I post a link that you and no one else can answer...it tells me I am getting closer to truth.

Therefore you must resort to copy and paste.

I type slow...copy and paste saves much time. I only cut and paste what I can or will defend.

I appreciate your willingness to learn. It seems as if you stopped learning "premil, dispensationalism" too soon.

I used to teach it ...so I think I kind of got it down pat. If I had to teach it again, I would have to sharpen up a bit as I have tried to let some of it go and replace it with better teaching.

I am not a Calvinist,

Not yet, DHK...but there is still hope:wavey: I will help you with that if you like.

but MacArthur is a highly educated man

.
yes...I still listen to him and he is a gifted brother in Christ. for years he was one of my ...go to ...guys on premillienial teaching as he is very consistent with it.
I do not have a problem with him...he just is mistaken on Israel, and has gone into print with it so it would be hard for him to change....but if God wants him to he will.

As a devout Calvinist he is both dispensational and pre-trib, pre-mil. That must count for something.
BTW, Dr. Bob is in the same camp. He is reformed, but pre-trib.

DHK...I was also in the same camp, I do not count any brother an enemy because he has a different eschatological calendar then I do. I just see more serious problems trying to be consistent with scripture with that teaching.

Many of those books were written by "sensationalists," those who would write with even a far greater imagination than LaHaye. Future events lends itself to that. One must caution himself not to read into the Bible more than is written

.

These men were looked up to until the postmill and amill believers dismantled the teaching. So now people have fled dispensationalism...calling them selves progressive or modified dispensationalists....they still share most of the same problems.

Having said that, we realize that words have meanings. Just to use one example, when John was transported into heaven, what did he see:

Revelation 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
--From various commentaries you will get all kind of speculations, and very seldom will one just simply say: "I really don't know what he saw."
Some will say it is modern day warfare, some kind of helicopter perhaps.

yes....as I was departing the dispy camp., I remember they were saying it was Apache attack helicopters:laugh:

We don't know what John saw. One of the reasons we don't know is that John had a very limited vocabulary. If he were describing things as they are today, he would be using 1st century vocabulary to describe 20th century technology which would have been an almost impossible task. (Note: I didn't agree with the interpretation I gave).

I used to explain this very thing to people.

The scripture often had nothing to do with the point being made.

Partial preterists see this as descriptive of the roman armies crushing Jerusalem. The vocabulary fits that quite well,,,

What you think is good scripture, like the dreams of Joseph, I consider totally irrelevant.

To be blunt as you say...{in my own words} you remain willfully ignorant of what the passage is teaching as well as all the figurative OT language.

I asked you....did the literal, sun, moon, and stars bow down to Joseph?
or did they represent something?

My contention is when God speaks of the sun moon and stars....he is being descriptive of governments changing, or rulers being supplanted.
Your foolish ridged literalism will not allow you to consider what God is saying in scripture, instead you look for some eclipse, or earthquake , or volcano making a big dust cloud,etc rather than understand what God intends by such language.

The antichrist will come. This is taught by almost every NT author.

and he did come ibetween 66-70 ad...

Then PLEASE put down YOUR thoughts. If you can think, put down, write down your thoughts, not the thoughts of some other Preterist.

NO, I said plainly that I would rather debate you, then the copy and paste posts of yours. Put down your thoughts in your words. Then it is a debate.

I have answered you in my own words. I say when I post a link, who it is..like Philip Mauro...I quoted him twice.
Some times you say the link I posted said......and it was not a link...but my own words:laugh: got to love it!


I could say the same in return. I can't debate your books however, even if they are on line. That is not the nature of debate.

I didn't put you down at all in this thread. This one last post was not meant to but to point out that I wasn't really debating you but the work that you were posting. You should at least own up to that much.

When you say I do not know what I am talking about, that is attempting to put me down. It fails however because I know what you know and then some.

You cannot accurately articulate the Calvinistic position, or the postmill position without making a caricature of it.

When O.R. posts solidly, you threaten to infract him??? what is that about?
If you cannot both participate and moderatate at the same time without letting your emotions overwhelm you...you might need to back out of it.

Let me say this...a week ago you said that people should stay on topic or not post in a thread...do you remember? This thread is about postmill/amill...and yet you post premill into it. that was not the OP was it?

I do not mind DHK...so I do not complain about it, because you at least try and offer scripture most of the time, and overall that is why we are here correct? So I can drift off the OP....as most of the Amill guys do not want to dispute among friends most of the time. I am somewhere in the middle at this point.

Debate is not: "You post your book and I will post my book."
That is not what the forum is for.
It is for an exchange of thoughts between two or more individuals. The source material is only to be used as support material, not as the argument in and of itself.

I use it as support material...many others really like the links

How are you going to make this argument at a truck stop w/o a Bible, computer, tract, or any other material.

I do it every day DHK...I am just fine with just my bible and a live person to interact with...One day when I am layed over ...I have a phone I hook up to my computer....I will hook it up and you can call and we will see what is what.
I do not think you will be disappointed. You might not like my answers and the verses I offer to you...but that is to find out.

 

[DHK]

DHK

I do not know how to build a yacht, but if I was onboard one and it had leak after leak....I could say the hull was failing and abandon ship:laugh:

I am in between positions and still learning and sifting through material and ideas about those views. I have not made dogmatic statements about them, but every time I post a link that you and no one else can answer...it tells me I am getting closer to truth.

I appreciate your post Icon. You are frank and honest.
I trust that you would not always assume that you should be on the opposite side of the coin as I am.

I type slow...copy and paste saves much time. I only cut and paste what I can or will defend.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

I used to teach it ...so I think I kind of got it down pat. If I had to teach it again, I would have to sharpen up a bit as I have tried to let some of it go and replace it with better teaching.

I am coming to understand that what you are saying is: you can articulate the pretrib position well because that is your former position. But the amil position is still a bit confusing because you are still in the process of learning about it??

Not yet, DHK...but there is still hope:wavey: I will help you with that if you like.

Not a chance Icon. In fact, as soon as I am ordering Dave Hunt's book, "What Love is This." I believe he has the proper perspective on Calvinism. Can you refute his book?

yes...I still listen to him and he is a gifted brother in Christ. for years he was one of my ...go to ...guys on premillienial teaching as he is very consistent with it.
I do not have a problem with him...he just is mistaken on Israel, and has gone into print with it so it would be hard for him to change....but if God wants him to he will.

DHK...I was also in the same camp, I do not count any brother an enemy because he has a different eschatological calendar then I do. I just see more serious problems trying to be consistent with scripture with that teaching.

You made my point here very well. They are both gifted. As you said about MacArthur he is very consistent. Yet at the same time he is wrong and you are right. That would cause me to have second thoughts about the position you are taking.

These men were looked up to until the postmill and amill believers dismantled the teaching. So now people have fled dispensationalism...calling them selves progressive or modified dispensationalists....they still share most of the same problems.

I don't find that to be a true statement. Maybe that is your experience; it seems to be a road that you have taken. The books by LaHaye, and others who were even more sensational than he, have not turned me away from the truth at all. The have only made me to be concerned about being sensational in both preaching and writing. The Bible is our guide.
If someone takes a certain position to an extreme that doesn't make the basic position wrong. There are many amil people who are reprobates. But that doesn't make you one.

yes....as I was departing the dispy camp., I remember they were saying it was Apache attack helicopters:laugh:

I am not sure of the current interpretation.

I used to explain this very thing to people.

And it is still true. Paul said the same thing.
In 2Cor.12:4, Young's translation, an accurate translation of this verse, says:
2 Corinthians 12:4 that he was caught away to the paradise, and heard unutterable sayings, that it is not possible for man to speak.
--There was nothing "unlawful" (KJV) for Paul to speak. It was not possible for him to speak of those things which he saw. He didn't have the vocabulary to express in his own language. It was impossible; he didn't have the vocabulary.

Partial preterists see this as descriptive of the roman armies crushing Jerusalem. The vocabulary fits that quite well,,,

To be blunt as you say...{in my own words} you remain willfully ignorant of what the passage is teaching as well as all the figurative OT language.

I have read some of Pink's commentary. I couldn't read very much of it. Much of it is nonsense. He finds a type under every nut, leaf, tree, etc. If he could he would make the punctuation marks represent something (there were none in the originals).

I asked you....did the literal, sun, moon, and stars bow down to Joseph?
or did they represent something?

The Bible says exactly what happened.
Joseph said, "IN MY DREAM, the sun, moon and stars bowed down to me." So, no, they did not bow down to him. It was a dream! But his father knew the interpretation and was indignant as he replied:
"Shall your mother and I, and your brothers bow down and do obeisance to you!" And he was rebuked.
However, the dream was prophetic, and it did come to pass in Joseph's lifetime. It was completely fulfilled and there is no need to look any further.

My contention is when God speaks of the sun moon and stars....he is being descriptive of governments changing, or rulers being supplanted.

And was it a Charismatic couple got divorced because the wall of Jericho came tumbling down, just like the wall of love that bound them together.
With allegory you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say.
I have heard some of the strangest interpretations.

Your foolish ridged literalism will not allow you to consider what God is saying in scripture, instead you look for some eclipse, or earthquake , or volcano making a big dust cloud,etc rather than understand what God intends by such language.

I observe. I believe the Bible. God meant what he said. I am not a conspiracist. Your interpretations lend one to believe in hidden conspiracies, gnostic truths, buried allegories, etc. God never spoke to his people that way.

and he did come ibetween 66-70 ad...

Is that verifiable by Charles Taze Russel or Ellen G. White?
Just what source are you using to validate this so-called fact?
One cannot state something as fact and not be able to verify it.
The Apostle John wrote in 90 A.D. and said:

1 John 2:18 Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many--whence we know that it is the last hour;
--That Antichrist does or will come. He hadn't come yet. This was in 90 A.D., well after Titus had come and gone.

I have answered you in my own words. I say when I post a link, who it is..like Philip Mauro...I quoted him twice.
Some times you say the link I posted said......and it was not a link...but my own words:laugh: got to love it!

You have done well in this post, and I appreciate that very much.

When you say I do not know what I am talking about, that is attempting to put me down. It fails however because I know what you know and then some.

You cannot accurately articulate the Calvinistic position, or the postmill position without making a caricature of it.

When O.R. posts solidly, you threaten to infract him??? what is that about?
If you cannot both participate and moderatate at the same time without letting your emotions overwhelm you...you might need to back out of it.

I have recently threatened an infraction because it appears that the only way he is making a particular point is by putting down or even slandering another person. If one cannot put forth their position without attacking the person than they shouldn't be posting. Therefore, it isn't a "solid post" is it?

Let me say this...a week ago you said that people should stay on topic or not post in a thread...do you remember? This thread is about postmill/amill...and yet you post premill into it. that was not the OP was it?

You are right; after having re-read the OP perhaps I should have stayed out of the conversation.

I do not mind DHK...so I do not complain about it, because you at least try and offer scripture most of the time, and overall that is why we are here correct? So I can drift off the OP....as most of the Amill guys do not want to dispute among friends most of the time. I am somewhere in the middle at this point.

Again, I appreciate your spirit and honesty in posting,

I use it as support material...many others really like the links

I do it every day DHK...I am just fine with just my bible and a live person to interact with...One day when I am layed over ...I have a phone I hook up to my computer....I will hook it up and you can call and we will see what is what.
I do not think you will be disappointed. You might not like my answers and the verses I offer to you...but that is to find out.

I don't think I would be disappointed either. We may be on the opposite side of the eschatological fence, but I am sure that you are a good witness for the Lord.

 

[kyredneck]

Consider the Scripture you posted.

11 .......we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
What does this mean? They were speaking in tongues. That is what the question refers to. What does the miracle of "speaking in tongues" mean?

And this is the answer of the ungoldy Jews.

No, they weren’t ungodly, the context of Acts 2 clearly describes them as being ‘devout’.

They attributed that Godly gift of speaking in tongues to drunkenness. This is solid evidence that the context is narrowed to speaking in tongues.

No, ‘the solid evidence’ that ‘the great and notable day of the Lord’ spoken of by the prophet Joel had come upon them was them hearing the gospel preached in their own language due to the apostles being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Two things to note here.
1. The last days started with Pentecost and continue until now and will continue until the Second Coming.

No, ‘the last days’ is the very same ‘end of the age’ of the Olivet discourse or ‘latter days’ of the Song of Moses’, and refers simply to the final days of the old covenant.

2. He did not pour his Spirit out on ALL flesh. There is not a person on this board that can honestly admit to that fact, not honestly and rationally.

No, He did indeed pour His spirit upon all flesh as Peter clearly testified in Acts 10 & 11. God is no respecter of persons.

Concerning these ‘last days’, Christ told the house of Israel:

.... Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever....Mt 21:19

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Mt 23:38

Which agrees with:

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

Their's is a heaven and earth of iron and brass:

And I will break the pride of your power: and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass; Lev 26:19

And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. Dt 28:23

We, on the other hand, are the new wineskins, the new creatures of the new heaven and new earth of the new covenant that drink new wine in the new Jerusalem. We, as new creatures, are the Israel of God.

 

[DHK]

No, they weren’t ungodly, the context of Acts 2 clearly describes them as being ‘devout’.

Verse 5 says:
Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation of those under the heaven,
--That doesn't mean they were all devout. If all were truly devout, then why weren't all devout.
Or, even if all were devout in the Judaism, as Saul was before he was saved, they would not have scorned what was happening. They were not ALL devout.
Now look down at verse 13:
Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
--The are "the others" who mocked. They are certainly not of the "devout."
They scorned what was happening. They were the reprobate, attributing the works of God to profane and wickedness.

No, ‘the solid evidence’ that ‘the great and notable day of the Lord’ spoken of by the prophet Joel had come upon them was them hearing the gospel preached in their own language due to the apostles being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The context was speaking in tongues. Even if it was "the great and notable day of the Lord," that refers to the Second Coming of Christ which never happened. Then one could accuse Christ as being a false prophet.

No, ‘the last days’ is the very same ‘end of the age’ of the Olivet discourse or ‘latter days’ of the Song of Moses’, and refers simply to the final days of the old covenant.

You are reading into Scripture things that are not there. Simply because you hold to covenantal view of Scripture does not make it true, and does not give you the right to allegorize the rest of the Bible to force your interpretation into it when it does't fit.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
--This is a partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, and therefore it starts here. The Scripture you give is all in future tense.

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
--Paul warned Timothy about these days. They were upon him. He gives a description of the times that he was living in.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--In contradistinction to verse one, where God spoke in various ways in OT times through his prophets, he has spoken to us in the last days through HIS SON, which began at Pentecost. That is when he sent the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
--There were scoffers at Pentecost and there are scoffers now. They attributed the speaking in tongues to drunkenness then, and they jest at the Word of God today. We still live in the last days.

No, He did indeed pour His spirit upon all flesh as Peter clearly testified in Acts 10 & 11. God is no respecter of persons.

Yes he is. If he wasn't he you would believe in universalism and ALL would be saved. As it is here is what Christ said:
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
--Some will go to heaven and some will go to hell.
The Spirit of God did not rest upon ALL flesh. That is very obvious.

Concerning these ‘last days’, Christ told the house of Israel:

.... Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever....Mt 21:19

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Mt 23:38

Which agrees with:

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

Their's is a heaven and earth of iron and brass:

And I will break the pride of your power: and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass; Lev 26:19

And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. Dt 28:23

We, on the other hand, are the new wineskins, the new creatures of the new heaven and new earth of the new covenant that drink new wine in the new Jerusalem. We, as new creatures, are the Israel of God.

None of the above scriptures have absolutely anything to do with Pentecost.

 

[Yeshua1]

All of us agree that in prophecy are some types/figures of speech, but not ot he extent that we have to question it all having been just symbolic/spiritualized!

and to give relief to you who are afflicted [d]and to us as well [e]when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with [f]His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified [g]in His [h]saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.
2 thessalonians 1:7-10 Nasb

Spiritualized/symbol. or a real event?

 

[evangelist6589]

Having left behind Dispensational error...I thought by default I must then be Amillennial.

Then I found out that some of the men I was reading were in fact postmillennial. I thought of myself as Optimistic Amillennial in that the gospel always accomplishes God's purpose in time.



Here is a short article on this in between position as I continue to look into this issue. What are your thoughts and scriptures that speak to this:thumbs:



PESSIMISM AND AMILLENNIALISM



Amillennialism October 30, 2013 Comments: 3





PMT 2013-020 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.



Pessimism OptimismSome amillennialists complain that postmillennialists wrongly categorize them as “pessimistic.” They generally reject this evaluation for two reasons: (1) It is negative sounding in itself, and (2) it overlooks the fact that they argue that ultimately Christ and his people win the victory at the end of history. Still other amillennialists deny this designation because they call themselves “optimistic amillennialists.”



What do we mean by our categorization of amillennialism as “pessimistic”?



Obviously all evangelical eschatological perspectives are ultimately optimistic: Christ does lead his people to victory in saving them from their sins, resurrecting them from the dead, and establishing them in righteousness in the eternal order. These issues are not debated among evangelicals: Christianity is of glorious, eternal consequence. But neither are they relevant to debate between the millennial views.



Historically amillennialism has tended to be pessimistic in terms of the question of widespread, long-lasting cultural success for the Christian faith in time and on earth. That is, regarding these matters:



First, as a system of gospel proclamation amillennialism teaches that the gospel of Christ will not exercise any majority influence in the world before Christ’s return. They allow that Christianity may enjoy flashes of revival and spurts of growth. Yet, by its very nature the amillennial system cannot allow that Christianity will become the dominant feature of human society and culture.







DVD debate between Amillennialist Richard Gaffin and Postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry

“Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism“









Second, as a system of historical understanding amillennialism, in fact, holds the Bible teaches there are prophetically determined, irresistible trends downward toward chaos in the outworking and development of history. Though some amillennialists understand the great tribulation in the Olivet Discourse as referring (correctly) to the Jewish War and the AD 70 destruction of the temple, their system necessarily demands a prophetically-determined collapse of society in history.



Third, as a system for the promotion of Christian discipleship amillennialism dissuades the Church from anticipating and laboring for wide-scale success in influencing the world for Christ during this age. In fact, this distinguishes amillennialism and postmillennialism.



Regarding the question of so-called “optimistic amillennialists,” it seems to me that the verses an amillennialist would use to underscore his optimism are those that endorse a postmillennial perspective. Unless, of course, he is optimistic on grounds other than direct biblical revelation. Therefore, he should come out of the closet and be a postmillennialist.

Amillennialism and Post are fallacies. They are allegorical systems to interpretation that slap the historical grammatical approach in the face. Those that hold to these systems change their hermeneutics with prophecy but follow the historical method in other topics such as Christology, The Holy Spirit,etc... It was in Alexandria that your system gave birth.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I appreciate your post Icon. You are frank and honest.
I trust that you would not always assume that you should be on the opposite side of the coin as I am.

All on BB who have called upon the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation are brothers.
We can have sharp and vigorous debate and still be brothers.

If I got a run up into Canada and you were witnessing to a person, I would not under-cut your efforts, I would pray that the word you were offering would take rooteven if we have doctrinal differences. That persons soul is more important than our views.

Here on BB we are able to sharpen each others understanding. Sometime we destroy rather than build up, but sooner or later everyone recovers to midline so to speak.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

We are not together in a local body as such, but we are in the Kingdom{even if you might say a mystery form of the Kingdom} but these principles apply to kingdom members-


18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

I am coming to understand that what you are saying is: you can articulate the pretrib position well because that is your former position. But the amil position is still a bit confusing because you are still in the process of learning about it??

Yes sort of. When I was taught and learned the premill position initially I was told that if anyone denied these teachings they might not be saved...avoid them.
At a bible study one man who came out was a Lutheran of all things...but he was a Christian. He was amillenial. I would hound him week after week near the end of each study and accuse him of symbolizing every thing. he stood his ground and assured me that he was looking for Jesus to return as I was.

Then I started reading other Christian men and looked at what they understood. I rejected most all of it for a long time. Then I spent two years studying the book of Hebrews. many of my understandings were forced to change....scripturally. It is still a work in progress....

Not a chance Icon. In fact, as soon as I am ordering Dave Hunt's book, "What Love is This." I believe he has the proper perspective on Calvinism. Can you refute his book?

While he is sincere and a scholar. I am very confident I can refute anything he has to offer. In fact feel free to cut and paste, or post as much of His book as you can, I will publically respond to anything he offers in my own words and scriptures primarily:wavey:

You made my point here very well. They are both gifted. As you said about MacArthur he is very consistent.

Yes I respect both Dr.Bob, and JMac. They are sinners saved by grace who God uses to further his Kingdom. look at Dr.Bob...apart from God's grace we would see his face on a wanted poster at the post office:laugh:

Yet at the same time he is wrong and you are right. That would cause me to have second thoughts about the position you are taking

.

This I find very interesting.You have great respect for John M.....so much so that because I do not agree with him on one area....end times and you suggest that I should take that into consideration.

Now let's turn that around for one minute DHK.....you have respect for him ... and yet you disagree with him on Calvinism, and Lordship. Would it be fair to say you have twice as much to consider than I do????

I don't find that to be a true statement. Maybe that is your experience; it seems to be a road that you have taken. The books by LaHaye, and others who were even more sensational than he, have not turned me away from the truth at all. The have only made me to be concerned about being sensational in both preaching and writing. The Bible is our guide.

I agree the bible is our guide. It was not the over the top sensationalists that swayed me....it is the overabundance of prophetic texts that forced to reconsider what I thought I knew.

If someone takes a certain position to an extreme that doesn't make the basic position wrong. There are many amil people who are reprobates. But that doesn't make you one.

Agreed

.

I have read some of Pink's commentary. I couldn't read very much of it. Much of it is nonsense. He finds a type under every nut, leaf, tree, etc. If he could he would make the punctuation marks represent something (there were none in the originals).

Agreed...I have found the same thing.Pink started out premill. When he switched he went off isolating himself from other godly men.His writings in the gleaning series were over the top...he said three levels in the ark represented the trinity??? His commentary on Hebrews was good.His book on the Sovereignty of God,and the atonement were classic.

The Bible says exactly what happened.
Joseph said, "IN MY DREAM, the sun, moon and stars bowed down to me." So, no, they did not bow down to him. It was a dream! But his father knew the interpretation and was indignant as he replied:
"Shall your mother and I, and your brothers bow down and do obeisance to you!" And he was rebuked.
However, the dream was prophetic, and it did come to pass in Joseph's lifetime. It was completely fulfilled and there is no need to look any further.

It was a dream yes.....but in the dream, the sun moon and stars represented something other than the sun moon and stars.

In several OT passages...the celestial bodies are symbols for government or rulers changing . This is consistently the case. That means we cannot dismiss it lightly as if the Holy Spirit did not communicate it to us in that form of language. He did so we need to exhaust all possibilities to come to truth.

.
With allegory you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say.
I have heard some of the strangest interpretations.

Like you said earlier extreme nut cases should not discredit legitimate attempts to sort through truth.

I observe. I believe the Bible. God meant what he said. I am not a conspiracist. Your interpretations lend one to believe in hidden conspiracies, gnostic truths, buried allegories, etc. God never spoke to his people that way

.
Galatians 4 comes to mind right away....Isa 5-mt21, all the parables

78 Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.

2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us
and in Jn16
25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father

Is that verifiable by Charles Taze Russel or Ellen G. White?
Just what source are you using to validate this so-called fact?
One cannot state something as fact and not be able to verify it.
The Apostle John wrote in 90 A.D. and said:

Behave yourself.

You are right; after having re-read the OP perhaps I should have stayed out of the conversation.

Well... most of the amill guys did not want to mix it up here...so I do not mind some thread drift....you are not trying to derail the thread like some who have made a habit of doing that in times past.

Again, I appreciate your spirit and honesty in posting,

I do not have any secrets or hidden agenda...we are to let our yes be yes, and our no be no as believers.

I don't think I would be disappointed either. We may be on the opposite side of the eschatological fence, but I am sure that you are a good witness for the Lord.

believeing what I do about God's eternal purpose I believe every person I meet each day is by Divine appointment and I pray for the chance to turn most every conversation toward Spiritual things.

While I debate and dispute here.when I speak face to face with people it is all about God's law being broken, God's provision for sinners in the blood of the cross, and that persons need to flee to Christ. I get a wide range of reactions.
At the truckstops other drivers come by thinking I am looking at porn on the computer. This has provided many chances to speak about sin,as I am downloading from sermonaudio. or posting on here, or reading a puritan or two.
Yeah those drivers do not see it coming, but the Spirit of God convicts them and they quickly try to cover up with religious ideas as a covering for the sin they already confessed they were seeking...

I meet my share of cultists, fallen women, drug users, even very respectable sinners......I pray for the people that God would like me to interact with...he provides many opportunities.
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

 

[Iconoclast]

evangelist

Amillennialism and Post are fallacies. They are allegorical systems to interpretation that slap the historical grammatical approach in the face. Those that hold to these systems change their hermeneutics with prophecy but follow the historical method in other topics such as Christology, The Holy Spirit,etc... It was in Alexandria that your system gave birth

.

Hello Evan,

let me ask you a question....
in rev 6;
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


What is being described in verses 12,and 13,,,tell me as specific as you can, what is being described?

and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

If you might be thinking this is the end of the world , cataclysmic judgments...look at the next post to Y1...describing the ot judgement that took place on idumea.....the same exact language was used by God, it was not the end of the world then was it?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeshua1

All of us agree that in prophecy are some types/figures of speech,

No we do not...if we did you would have answered the question put to you, or admit you cannot answer for it.

but not ot he extent that we have to question it all having been just symbolic/spiritualized!

here once again.....answer what this verse is saying...what was happening , to who was it happening, what language did God use to describe it?
What was meant by the language.
Yeshua1



Quote:
The Kingdom of God did not come in its fullness at that time, as jesus said that it was not yet the time, and peter confirmed that it was not the time to have it ushered in right then, for if had been, there would have beem the kingdom restired to israel, and the whole earth would have had the messianuc age come in!


How can you keep seeing Joel as fully fulfilled, or that national Israel forfeitrd the Kingdom forever, as very clear God used their hardness to bring Gentiles unto salvation, but once done dealing with them, will turn back towards the redemption of the jewish peoples!

You are asking more questions, but you have not answered those asked of you;


you made this statement:


Quote:
Quote:
And you cannot call those prophecies as all symbolic, as the Bible stated that there were to be signs in the heavens and in the sky and on the earth...

I then asked you this-
really? I know for a fact you have not looked this up. Go back to my lengthy post with DHK.....look up the terms and figures used.

here is the language from Isa34....the destruction of Edom[idumea]...tell me which parts of the language is literal?
2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.

3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved,

and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:

and all their host shall fall down, a
all the stars fall down to the earth...one star would burn us to a crisp...

do not run away and hide.....answer this for us It is easy to comment as you do...but if you want to comment, you need to face the music when called upon...

I just asked evan a similar question, unless you can answer here, there is no need to go further is there???? Why move to a different set of verses until we can settle this one.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1



No we do not...if we did you would have answered the question put to you, or admit you cannot answer for it.


here once again.....answer what this verse is saying...what was happening , to who was it happening, what language did God use to describe it?
What was meant by the language.
Yeshua1



Quote:
The Kingdom of God did not come in its fullness at that time, as jesus said that it was not yet the time, and peter confirmed that it was not the time to have it ushered in right then, for if had been, there would have beem the kingdom restired to israel, and the whole earth would have had the messianuc age come in!


How can you keep seeing Joel as fully fulfilled, or that national Israel forfeitrd the Kingdom forever, as very clear God used their hardness to bring Gentiles unto salvation, but once done dealing with them, will turn back towards the redemption of the jewish peoples!

You are asking more questions, but you have not answered those asked of you;


you made this statement:


Quote:
Quote:
And you cannot call those prophecies as all symbolic, as the Bible stated that there were to be signs in the heavens and in the sky and on the earth...

I then asked you this-
really? I know for a fact you have not looked this up. Go back to my lengthy post with DHK.....look up the terms and figures used.

here is the language from Isa34....the destruction of Edom[idumea]...tell me which parts of the language is literal?
2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.

3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved,

and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:

and all their host shall fall down, a
all the stars fall down to the earth...one star would burn us to a crisp...

do not run away and hide.....answer this for us It is easy to comment as you do...but if you want to comment, you need to face the music when called upon...

I just asked evan a similar question, unless you can answer here, there is no need to go further is there???? Why move to a different set of verses until we can settle this one.

I would take that language as speaking in symbolic like ways, but actually describing a real historical event happening...

Like when it states that the elements will melt away, I take that to mean literally melted/destroyed!

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeshua1

I would take that language as speaking in symbolic like ways, but actually describing a real historical event happening...

okay....it was a real historic event.....

Like when it states that the elements will melt away, I take that to mean literally melted/destroyed!

okay...if it is literal- DID

and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.

MOUNTAINS LITERALLY MELTED?

4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved,

ALL OF HEAVEN WAS DISSOLVED?

and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:
HEAVEN ROLLED UP LIKE A SCROLL?

and all their host shall fall down,

THE STARS FELL TO THE EARTH....LITERALLY?

Do you see the problem with this??? one literal star would melt the whole earth...how can it be literal?

This happened around 485-585bc

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/fulfill.shtml