And we both are still under the impression that your view--that Christ now has no physical body--and that of Docetism, that Christ never had a body--are quite similar. If you don't like that, you have to change your view.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I believe we've debunked preterism.
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
In what way have I misinterpreted or misrepresented your views?
I wasn't talking to you. Covenanter clearly said he believed we are in the Millennium, meanwhile saying he was amil (which means "without a millennium").
How well I know that. My wife and I went to a favorite buffet for lunch after church one Sunday several years ago, and as I stood in line a woman who was in too big a hurry to stand in line like everyone else pushed past us and in so doing kicked my left crutch out from under me. I could not catch myself so I ended up on the floor, and once down I can't get up without a lot of help. I am not a big guy but even 160 pounds is too much for my wife to lift.
As a couple other patrons helped lift me back up, the daughter of the rude woman yelled to her mother, "Mom, you knocked that man down!" Her mother turned and said, "Then he should get out of the way."
Compassion? Empathy? Both are pretty rare today. There is a 14 year old boy in our church who was recently diagnosed with a very rare and very painful disease of the bones and joints. He sat down beside me and asked, "How do you keep going every day with so much pain?" I looked at him and smiled and said, "What choice do we have? There are many days I want it to all go away, but it doesn't. We just have to go on with our lives as best we can." I had 60 good years before being diagnosed. That boy was only 14. And he had been sick for several years before they finally diagnosed him correctly. I am an old man. I am looking forward to laying down the burden and waking up on glory, But that boy has his entire life still ahead of him. When I think of what he will have to endure for the next 70 or 80 years it brings tears to my eyes.
Jim Hill wrote one of the best modern hymns available today, and I especially like "What a Day that Will Be."
There is coming a day,
When no heart aches shall come,
No more clouds in the sky,
No more tears to dim the eye,
All is peace forever more,
On that happy golden shore,
What a day, glorious day that will be.
What a day that will be,
When my Jesus I shall see,
And I look upon His face,
The One who saved me by His grace;
When He takes me by the hand,
And leads me through the Promised Land,
What a day, glorious day that will be.
There'll be no sorrow there,
No more burdens to bear,
No more sickness, no pain,
No more parting over there;
And forever I will be,
With the One who died for me,
What a day, glorious day that will be.
What a day that will be,
When my Jesus I shall see,
And I look upon His face,
The One who saved me by His grace;
When He takes me by the hand,
And leads me through the Promised Land,
What a day, glorious day that will be.
Last edited:
The last verse of Bill Gaither's Because He Lives also means a lot to me.
God sent His son, they called Him Jesus
He came to love, heal and forgive
He lived and died to buy my pardon
An empty grave is there to prove my savior lives
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives
How sweet to hold a newborn baby
And feel the pride and joy He gives
But greater still the calm assurance
This child can face uncertain day, because He lives
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives
And then one day, I'll cross the river
I'll fight life's final war with pain
And then, as death gives way to victory
I'll see the lights of glory and I'll know He reigns
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives.
God sent His son, they called Him Jesus
He came to love, heal and forgive
He lived and died to buy my pardon
An empty grave is there to prove my savior lives
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives
How sweet to hold a newborn baby
And feel the pride and joy He gives
But greater still the calm assurance
This child can face uncertain day, because He lives
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives
And then one day, I'll cross the river
I'll fight life's final war with pain
And then, as death gives way to victory
I'll see the lights of glory and I'll know He reigns
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because He lives.
John, if you are going to use labels, you should use them properly, than than apply heretical labels like "Docetism" to faithful believers.
Also it is generally accepted that there are 3 views of the 1,000 years -
amil - meaning no future millennium, i.e. Rev. 20 refers to the present Gospel age;
postmil - meaning an age of peace & Gospel progress before Jesus returns for resurrection & judgment & the NH≠
premil - meaning a future millennium after Jesus returns for earthly rule & before the NH≠
Please keep to accepted labels rather than redefining what has been in use for centuries.
Tell you what, while believing that your view that Christ has not now a physical body is similar to Docetism, I apologize for agreeing with the perceived mischaracterization of your view as Docetism.
Now, I'm sure you plan to apologize for completely misrepresenting my view of the Greek word parousia, right?
I have now apologized for agreeing with a perceived mischaracterization of asterisktom's as Docetism. Now I'm waiting for his apology.
You said on p. 4, Post #80: "I believe the present Gospel age is the millennium, and that Jesus will come in glory to do as he promised." That is postmillennialism, no doubt about it. Since you believe that we are in the millennium now, your position cannot be amillennialism, which believes that there is no millennium. Those are the "accepted labels" which have "been in use for centuries."
"Literally, amillennialism is the idea that there will be no millennium, no earthly reign of Christ. The great final judgement will immediately follow the second coming and issue directly in the final states of the righteous and the wicked. Amillennialism is a simpler view than either of the others" (Christian Theology, 2nd ed, by Millard Erickson, Baker Books, 1998, p. 1218).
I love that......you hang in there brother, your display of dealing with the pain inspires others, and thats a gift you provide. I will pray for you!
That is funny!You are asking for someone to provide..SCRIPTURES???
I strongly recommend that you read at least the postmil & amil sections of "Four views on the millennium" on the blueletterbible.org
It's the understanding - the present Gospel age is the thousand years of Rev. 20 - I've had in many discussions in the last 60 years. I suggest you cease your own "literal" definition of amil & postmil & use the accepted terminology.
I more often sing this small testimony in my quite times of grief and distress - both physical and mental.
I am not the man I once was (thank you Father), and I am not the man I will be, but, while I yet remain, I will be like my Lord as I can be.
Last edited:
Hey, it's no skin off my nose if you wish to use the wrong terminology for your position. And if you wish to use flawed resources for that, again, that is up to you. But my students are not allowed to use the article you sourced because it has no author listed, so there is no way to tell who wrote it or how informed they are. (I teach theology for a living, remember.)
In fact, I find the author singularly uninformed, since he/she/it includes the ISBN in the bibliographies (not professional), and also has this statement after the amil position: "The Rapture: The saints, living and dead, shall meet the Lord in the clouds and immediately proceed to judge the nations with Christ and then follow Him into their eternal state." I mean, really??? There is a rapture in the amil position???
On the other hand, my source, cited above, is the leading systematic theologian among Baptists nowadays, used in most Baptist seminaries.
I would like to expand the use of ISBN (International book number - for those who do not remember) as not being acceptable.Hey, it's no skin off my nose if you wish to use the wrong terminology for your position. And if you wish to use flawed resources for that, again, that is up to you. But my students are not allowed to use the article you sourced because it has no author listed, so there is no way to tell who wrote it or how informed they are. (I teach theology for a living, remember.)
In fact, I find the author singularly uninformed, since he/she/it includes the ISBN in the bibliographies (not professional), and also has this statement after the amil position: "The Rapture: The saints, living and dead, shall meet the Lord in the clouds and immediately proceed to judge the nations with Christ and then follow Him into their eternal state." I mean, really??? There is a rapture in the amil position???
On the other hand, my source, cited above, is the leading systematic theologian among Baptists nowadays, used in most Baptist seminaries.
The problem is that when using the ISBN number it does not point to the specific place nor the specific authority of the citation.
Rather, it carries with that numbering, the ability to find the book of which the statement would use for discussion.
It is obvious why this is unacceptable documentation, because typically a book of any note that involves factual information includes all manner of statements which the author may or may not hold, but may in fact be various statements presented in conflict with each other as comparing and contrasting.
That is why, typically, the professors expect students to give author, title, year, page number and other indicators so any could go and locate the exact statement and read how it is used.
prophecy70
Active Member
Hey, it's no skin off my nose if you wish to use the wrong terminology for your position. And if you wish to use flawed resources for that, again, that is up to you. But my students are not allowed to use the article you sourced because it has no author listed, so there is no way to tell who wrote it or how informed they are. (I teach theology for a living, remember.)
In fact, I find the author singularly uninformed, since he/she/it includes the ISBN in the bibliographies (not professional), and also has this statement after the amil position: "The Rapture: The saints, living and dead, shall meet the Lord in the clouds and immediately proceed to judge the nations with Christ and then follow Him into their eternal state." I mean, really??? There is a rapture in the amil position???
On the other hand, my source, cited above, is the leading systematic theologian among Baptists nowadays, used in most Baptist seminaries.
You are wrong on what Amillennialism is and Post Millennialism, thats plain and simple.
I read the books on people that support it, and people that support Post Millennium, everyone is wrong besides you?
A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times Kim Riddlebarger
Amillennarians believe that the millennium of Christ's heavenly reign is a present reality, not a future hope to come after his return.
Amillennialism (Greek: a- "no" + millennialism) is the view in Christian eschatology which states that Christ is presently reigning through the Church, and that the "1000 years" of Revelation 20:1-6 is a metaphorical reference to the present church age which will culminate in Christ's return. It stands in contrast to premillennialism, which states that Christ will return prior to a literal 1000 year earthly reign; and postmillennialism, which states that Christ's return will follow a 1000 year golden age ushered in by the church.
http://www.theopedia.com/amillennialism
Now, in City of God, Augustine viewed the thousand years of Revelation 20 not as some special future time but "the period beginning with Christ's first coming," that is, the age of the Christian church. Throughout this age, the saints reign with Christ—not in the fullness of the coming kingdom prepared for those blessed by God the Father, but "in some other and far inferior way."
Amillennialism: Millennium Today
Amillennialism alters the timeline of the end times to fit these two views. Christ's kingdom was established at His resurrection. The "first resurrection" (Revelation 20:4-6) does not refer to the physical resurrection of the saints, as premillennialism teaches, but to a spiritual resurrection, that is, the point in history when the Holy Spirit became available to dwell in the hearts of the believers. The "kingdom," then, is a kingdom in spirit only and lasts until Jesus' second coming. The second coming is concurrent with the rapture of the believers. Everyone will be judged, and then the second resurrection will return physical bodies to souls. The eternal state will immediately follow.
amillennialism.html
That is correct, No millennium, no earthly reign. Its symbolically now!
Here is the problem with a mill. thinking.
It doesn’t fit with the last three chapters of the Revelation.
Augustine got A LOT wrong.
prophecy70
Active Member
It fits fine.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5 AM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 5 AM Pacific.
No, they were not wrong, and neither am I. Not one of them put a date on when those events would occur. And there's no misinterp. When is an earthquake not an earthquake?
no, I'm demanding PRETERISTS show ***PROOF/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION*** those events have already occurred.if you can't provide such proof, you're wasting your time. Nothing else can sustain your pro-pret statements.
These are HUGE, PROFOUND events! had they already happened, history would be replete with full evidence & documentation. However, they're completely absent from history. You might as well try to convince us Al Gore was prez for 8 years.
Well, actually, he's speaking of PRETERISTS, who deny Jesus is physically returning to take over the rule of the world.
We have proven by Scripture, by the very words of Jesus himself, that he will retuen IMMEDIATELY AFTER the great trib is ended. So, if it has already occurred, He is long-overdue.
There's no lack of evidence that the Romans destroyed J & the temple in 70 AD. No lavk of evidence J is trod underfoot by gentiles today, that there's war & rumor of war, that Christians are being persecuted with decapitations, that a great "falling away" has occurred, with more govts. recognizing same-sex marriage, condoning all sorts of sexual sin while many church 'services' have become dance parties, etc. etc. In the face of all these LITERAL fulfillments of Jesus' prophecies, there's simply NO valid reason to believe the others won;t come to pass JUST-AS-LITERALLY!
Since your "the language is figurative/symbolic/metaphorical" excuse has flopped, you're now trying the "It happened in the spirit world". one. Well, that one flops, too, in the face of Scripture's saying the armies of the beast will come against jesus, spread across the face OF THE EARTH.
Again, without being able to ***PROVE*** your pro-pret statements, they remain so much blather & hot air.
Because the prophecies are FOR THE EARTH, not the spirit world.
- Status