Millennial Questions

[EdSutton]

The best synopsis of Wesley's theology of the Kingdom may be one of his sermons on The Lord's Prayer:

In order that the name of God may be hallowed, we pray that His kingdom, the kingdom of Christ, may come. This kingdom then comes to a particular person, when he "repents and believes the gospel"; when he is taught of God, not only to know himself, but to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified. As "this is the life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent"; so it is the kingdom of God begun below, set up in the believer's heart; "the Lord God Omnipotent then 'reigneth,' " when He is known through Christ Jesus. He taketh unto Himself His mighty power, that He may subdue all things unto Himself. He goeth on in the soul conquering and to conquer, till He hath put all things under His feet, till "every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."

Did all of the old brethren have the Kingdom of God and eschatology wrong until the ninetenth century??​

Obviously, given the many varied possibilities one can see presented, just on this board, alone, most of us have it wrong still.

Simply, Pre-mill, A-mill, Post-mill, "historic Mill", and Preterism, cannot all be correct at the same time, so at least four of these five basic primary options have to be wrong, from the get-go.

Ed
​

 

[EdSutton]

Jesus didn't see it either, or at least did not feel it was of importance so as to tell us.

BBob,

Brother Bob, that is a silly statement. The words of Jesus comprise much less than 10% of Scripture. That alone means that 90% of it was spoken by others, and actually 100% of it was written by others. Jesus never mentioned Esther, Ezra, Haggai, or Joseph, to name four, specifically, and mentioned such as Noah, Isaac, , and Jonah in only one or two sentences, to name a few, I believe.

Does that mean that they are not important?

Of course not, for Jesus said 'not one jot or tittle of the law shoud pass away' and 'the Scriptures cannot be broken' for a couple of instances, approving the Scriptures. He approved what was already written, by these statements, alone. Not to mention, He put His stamp of approval on the existing three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures in Lk. 24:44, encompassing all the OT. The very next verse, says that He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. The next verses after that talk about both Hs death, and some (not all, obviously) things that should follow.

For Jesus, it was all of it. I know what you said is not exactly what you are meaning, but that is how that sentence 'sounds'.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Jesus didn't see it either, or at least did not feel it was of importance so as to tell us.

BBob,
Brother Bob, that is a silly statement. The words of Jesus comprise much less than 10% of Scripture. That alone means that 90% of it was spoken by others, and actually 100% of it was written by others. Jesus never mentioned Esther, Ezra, Haggai, or Joseph, to name four, specifically, and mentioned such as Noah, Isaac, , and Jonah in only one or two sentences, to name a few, I believe.

I see you noticed I didn't like Skypair calling my posts silly, so you thought you would "pile on".

Now, you are being silly, a little ole thing like a 1000 year reign that Jesus will be the King of and He failed to mentioned it. Get real Ed.
Especially when He took the time to tell us how the end would really be.

Jhn 5:28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Jhn 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Why is this never in any of the eschatologies I see posted on here. This is from the man Himself.

Are we living under the New Covenant???

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob



The best synopsis of Wesley's theology of the Kingdom may be one of his sermons on The Lord's Prayer:

Quote:​

In order that the name of God may be hallowed, we pray that His kingdom, the kingdom of Christ, may come. This kingdom then comes to a particular person, when he "repents and believes the gospel"; when he is taught of God, not only to know himself, but to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified. As "this is the life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent"; so it is the kingdom of God begun below, set up in the believer's heart; "the Lord God Omnipotent then 'reigneth,' " when He is known through Christ Jesus. He taketh unto Himself His mighty power, that He may subdue all things unto Himself. He goeth on in the soul conquering and to conquer, till He hath put all things under His feet, till "every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."


Did all of the old brethren have the Kingdom of God and eschatology wrong until the ninetenth century??


​

Obviously, given the many varied possibilities one can see presented, just on this board, alone, most of us have it wrong still.

Simply, Pre-mill, A-mill, Post-mill, "historic Mill", and Preterism, cannot all be correct at the same time, so at least four of these five basic primary options have to be wrong, from the get-go.

Ed



​

Maybe Five.

Are we living under the New Covenant???

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Why is the truth silly to you??? Its a number that no man can number, according to scripture. Jesus said at this time His Kingdom did not come by observation, but is within us. As I research all the early brethren they did not speak of several Kingdoms, Just you and those who started it in the ninetenth century. Why should I agree with you when I don't?? He can be where ever He wants to be. He is in Heaven beside the Father, but He is my King, and the government of the church is upon His shoulders.


I did not know John Wesley was Catholic???

Why do you use remarks that bring out the worst in people? Such as calling our posts silly?
Not to get into this deeply, for we've been over it several times, but what do you mean by saying John Wesley did not have an eschatology? Of course he did, just as you and I do, even if what I say happens to be far more detailed (and correct) :smilewinkgrin: than what you are saying. Of course they are more detailed than mine, you throw in a lot of ....like 4 o 5 Kingdoms that Skypair speaks of.......... I try to give the eschatology that Jesus gave:


Jhn 5:28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Jhn 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.



The fact that we happen to differ one from another, or that one is not as detailed in his own mind as another does not mean he doesn't have a doctrine of eshcatology, or any other doctrine, for that matter.

For an example, just because you and I believe in immersion, as the mode for baptism, and another believes 'sprinkling' or 'pouring' is acceptable does not mean they do not believe in baptism.

Just means that they are completely wrong, on this point. :laugh:

Ed

And hereeeeeeeeeee He issssssssssssss








The best synopsis of Wesley's theology of the Kingdom may be one of his sermons on The Lord's Prayer:

In order that the name of God may be hallowed, we pray that His kingdom, the kingdom of Christ, may come. This kingdom then comes to a particular person, when he "repents and believes the gospel"; when he is taught of God, not only to know himself, but to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified. As "this is the life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent"; so it is the kingdom of God begun below, set up in the believer's heart; "the Lord God Omnipotent then 'reigneth,' " when He is known through Christ Jesus. He taketh unto Himself His mighty power, that He may subdue all things unto Himself. He goeth on in the soul conquering and to conquer, till He hath put all things under His feet, till "every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."






​

BBob,

But of course you are so much more detailed than all the rest of us, but we don't live by a Greek grocery store........... I don't believe any of your .... or the store owner's...............about end times.

Are we living under the New Covenant??

 

[EdSutton]

And hereeeeeeeeeee He issssssssssssss






The best synopsis of Wesley's theology of the Kingdom may be one of his sermons on The Lord's Prayer:

In order that the name of God may be hallowed, we pray that His kingdom, the kingdom of Christ, may come. This kingdom then comes to a particular person, when he "repents and believes the gospel"; when he is taught of God, not only to know himself, but to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified. As "this is the life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent"; so it is the kingdom of God begun below, set up in the believer's heart; "the Lord God Omnipotent then 'reigneth,' " when He is known through Christ Jesus. He taketh unto Himself His mighty power, that He may subdue all things unto Himself. He goeth on in the soul conquering and to conquer, till He hath put all things under His feet, till "every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."




​

BBob,

But of course you are so much more detailed than all the rest of us, but we don't live by a Greek grocery store........... I don't believe any of your hogwash or the store owner's...............about end times.

Not at all. No Greek store owners in my "neck of the woods"! One grocery store owner, and the one I happen to frequent the most, happens to originally be from Mombai, India, and is a Hindu. The other is a "genuine All-American Kentucky redneck" that was born here and has lived here all his life. And I don't believe I have ever given any great details about what I happen to believe about "the end times" on the Baptist Board" in the first place, although I have corrected some historical errors made in statements by you and others.

Historical facts are never "hogwash", in any sense.

However, the "end times" teaching of any and/or all, such as Tertullian, Justin, Origen, Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, Darby, Scofield, Cotton and Increas Mather, Jonathan Edwards, George Ladd, Oswald T. Allis, Charles Ryrie, Darrell Bock, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, webdog, Ed Edwards, DeafPosttrib, skyypair, Brother Bob, or EdSutton may or may not be in that category.

And, I would here offer that the fictional works of the "End Times" series by LaHaye, "In His Steps" by Sheldon, and any other such fictional work, on any 'Christian theme', may make for good, entertaining, even profitable reading, but make an extremely poor foundation for the building of any doctrine.

I would no more build on such, than I would on the Hindu Vedii, which I would never do under any circumstances.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

However, the "end times" teaching of any and/or all, such as Tertullian, Justin, Origen, Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, Darby, Scofield, Cotton and Increas Mather, Jonathan Edwards, George Ladd, Oswald T. Allis, Charles Ryrie, Darrell Bock, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, skyypair, Brother Bob, or EdSutton may or may not be in that category.

You put out a bunch of names once before and I had to refute them. I will pass this time seeing I have already covered this ground.

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

You put out a bunch of names once before and I had to refute them. I will pass this time seeing I have already covered this ground.

BBob,

I am making no claims about any of them, except to say that they all held or hold varying views on eschatology. That is merely an historical fact, which cannot be refuted in any way.

Your claim, right or wrong (unless you've changed horses in the middle of the stream) is that the doctrine of a literal physical millenium was not the dominant view of "the church" for over a thousand years. That is a completely true statement and claim, from what I can ascertain.

But then you go on to add that it was basically never taught before the time of Darby around 1825. That is a false statement, for I have shown historical references, time and again, that it in fact some versions of 'millenialism' were believed and taught by some.

That that might have been a minority view, and not particularly favored, does not change the fact that some form of this was taught by some. The Mathers are one example, as they preached some form of this a century before Darby, and in fact, Increase lived to be 84 and died only 5 years before his son Cotton, who died in 1728 almost exactly a century before Darby started to generate much notice. I have even shown that a version of 'millenialism' was very likely preached in my own home church, right here in KY, several years prior to the birth of Darby, who was not even born until 1800. And the oft-repeated story about him picking up this teaching from a Margaret MacDonald is also some of that 'fiction' you and others have mentioned, for some of his teachings on this were already published by the time he even made her acquaintance.

Ans as I've already said multiple times, "It don't make any of 'em right, but it do make them historical!"

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Margaret MacDonald

I cannot recall ever mentioning the name of Margaret MacDonald , in any of my posts. I do not even recall the name.
Also, I always tried to say there was 3 or 4 that had taught of the Millenium but were silenced in the church about teaching it. IMO There was a reign called Chilism (sic) in the Jewish doctrine, which some believe was carried over into the NT.
Also, some information says they even taught of being able to have all the fleshly desires they wanted in this Millenium that was taught in the early years so as to try and draw in the Jews. True or not, I do not know. I believe it was called "Sensual desires", that they taught in their Millenium. Sounds a lot like Islam.

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

I cannot recall ever mentioning the name of Margaret MacDonald , in any of my posts. I do not even recall the name.
Also, I always tried to say there was 3 or 4 that had taught of the Millenium but were silenced in the church about teaching it. IMO There was a reign called Chilism (sic) in the Jewish doctrine, which some believe was carried over into the NT.
Also, some information says they even taught of being able to have all the fleshly desires they wanted in this Millenium that was taught in the early years so as to try and draw in the Jews. True or not, I do not know. I believe it was called "Sensual desires", that they taught in their Millenium. Sounds a lot like Islam.

BBob,

Margaret Macdonald is the name of the young lady (usually called a "young girl") that John Nelson Darby supposedly got his ideas from after she received a vision of the future. Some of the references you cited have referred to this.

Bye! Suppertime.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Margaret Macdonald is the name of the young lady (usually called a "young girl") that John Nelson Darby supposedly got his ideas from after she received a vision of the future. Some of the references you cited have referred to this.

Bye! Suppertime.

Ed

Yea, I didn't know the name and picked that up off of someone else's post. After I did it, I wish I hadn't.
I don't ususally use something that I have no backing. Especially posting with you.............

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Are you saying the Lord is not your King now??

I think you must be getting "oldtimers" disease, BBob. Did you not read that I believe we are in His SPIRITUAL kingdom now?

Do you have a divinity degree and still hold these opinions about the kingdoms?

You were right on one thing -- if you are going to ignore 1000 year kingdom with Satan bound in Rev 20, you probably shouldn't open your mouth about eschatology. God has some pretty strong sanctions against "taking away from the words of this book."

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

I think you must be getting "oldtimers" disease, BBob. Did you not read that I believe we are in His SPIRITUAL kingdom now?

(Skypair)
So, multiple choice -- which do we live in? A) spiritual kingdom absent the King or B) phsyical theocracy of Messiah or C) God's kingdom "face to face."


BBob
I think you are the one with the desease!!! You are the one who said it was absent the King!!!! You can't even remember you said the Spiritual Kingdom now is absent the King.

Either give scripture where Christ will reign a thousand years ON EARTH, and that a thousand is actually 1000, or quit wasting my time. I don't care for your off color remarks.

 

[skypair]

Either give scripture where Christ will reign a thousand years ON EARTH, and that a thousand is actually 1000, or quit wasting my time.

Bobby, you're acting like some of your little VBS wards.

You know where to find the proof once you put your glasses on.

You're getting a little to precocious to play with now, Bobby. I'm going home.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Bobby, you're acting like some of your little VBS wards.

You know where to find the proof once you put your glasses on.

You're getting a little to precocious to play with now, Bobby. I'm going home.

skypair

In other words you do not have scripture to back up your theory of Christ reigning ON EARTH a thousand years, so you turn to ad hominem??? Figures!!

 

[EdSutton]

I'd note that a lack of Scripture never seems to be much of an obstacle to anyone posting on the BB, in about any forum. {Laugh!} {Laugh!}

And, for that matter, even posting a lot of Scripture, if it is seen to be basically wrongly interpretated, may not suffice to keep one from being

! Banned??

As several recently found out over a single subject, ,
Yup!! You're

!!!

The first sentence above may be humorous, the following ones informative, but, unfortunately, I have seen no great dearth of ad homimem attacks, as well, in my two years here. :tear:

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Yup!! You're

!!!

The first sentence above may be humorous, the following ones informative, but, unfortunately, I have seen no great dearth of ad homimem attacks, as well, in my two years here. :tear:

Ed

Really! Well, you must of had your head stuck in the sand!

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Really! Well, you must of had your head stuck in the sand!

BBob,

Please, Bob. Keep it on a leash. You won't believe Rev 20 is what it boils down to.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Please, Bob. Keep it on a leash. You won't believe Rev 20 is what it boils down to.

skypair

Maybe you could show me where in Rev. 20, it says Christ will reign ON EARTH for thousand years. One very important fact you overlook also, it says the SOULS (of them) shall reign with Christ. Nowhere does it say the bodies will be there. No where does it say where this reign will take place. You add it will be on earth, but that is not scripture.
Your remarks don't cover up your false teaching.

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Maybe you could show me where in Rev. 20, it says Christ will reign ON EARTH for thousand years. One very important fact you overlook also, it says the SOULS (of them) shall reign with Christ. Nowhere does it say the bodies will be there. No where does it say where this reign will take place. You add it will be on earth, but that is not scripture.
Your remarks don't cover up your false teaching.

Please, Bob -- the leash.

What happened in Rev 19? Christ came back to EARTH, right. And in Rev 20, thrones set up. Where, Bob. Sounds like Mt 25:13-46 following behind Mt 24:31 to me, Bobby.

I know it says "souls," Bob. How do YOU imagine they "live and reign with Christ a thousand years?" I'm imagining this, Bob -- I'm thinking they get rewarded like Mt 25 says, with "Talents" or, as Mt 24:45 says, "ruler over His household."

I think your interpretation is completely void of any other scriptural validation. You read it in a complete vacuum and dismiss it as irrelevant to YOUR paradigm. But just in case, what scripture do you associate this passage with?

I'm thinking you need to take your degree back to wherever you got is and admit you are "unworthy" of it in that you can't make the most elemental OT/NT connections before rushing to your own interpretation.

skypair