millinial questions

Hippolytus: it seems that Hippolytus believed that Jesus is already on His throne.
61. By the woman then clothed with the sun," he meant most manifestly the Church, endued wth the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the "moon under her feet" he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, "she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered," mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. "And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." "And the dragon," he says, "saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: "And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-christ.html

BBob,

 

I'm waiting, brother Bob. Are you gonna "man up" and answer Ezek 43 or just "lift your skirt" and run like a "girly man?" :laugh:

skypair

 

So, you want to go back to a "sin offering" I see and you will still need ordinances to keep them from sinning. NO Thanks!

Ezek 43:
10: Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
11: And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

21: Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.
22: And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock.
23: When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.
24: And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
25: Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish.
26: Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves.
27: And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.

 

Brother Bob, I can take you on point for point on each of your accusations and misunderstandings, but it will do no good BECAUSE you aren't really interested in any answer except in your point of view.

Debating is about looking at the scriptures to see what it says and then debating the verasity of the claim, since that is not what is going on there is no point in continuing this dialog with you in this particular discussion. It will only degenerate into name calling and such, and in fact has already begun:

You wont listen the very scholars you quote who are apparently 'misquoted' in your posting, and give a completely different statement regarding Pre-mill view.

Pre-Mill was not only a fact but the main concept for first 300 years of Church history, it is a fact you nor any other Amil can get around. The Amil didn't even become a prominent view until Origen who is know for spiritualizing much of scripture and prophesy was no different. Also you are correct that the Pre-mill view was held at bay (but not done away with) for about '1400' years due to the Catholic Church (who by the way persecuted biblcal truth and it's believers during that time) and to some extent the Reformed as well who maintain this Catholic teaching.

The bottom line is that I believe scripture should be seen as literal in every instance unless otherwise directed by context or wording to view it different. I see the prophesies of Christ coming as literal and not spiritualized and metaphorical, whereas in the Amil view they do not.

However, the one thing that believers of Christ in either view had in common throughout most of the centuries is 2 things. They both believed in the Coming of the Lord and they both had respect and love for the brethren of the other view.
Granted the Catholics didn't and a few of the Reformed view didn't but on the whole there was peace.

So let us break here as brothers and friends, We can at least agree to disagree

Your brother in Christ, Allan V.

 

Thats an Amen to that.

 

I agree to disagree and regardless of whether you are right or I am right, the most important thing is to teach men and women to repent "now" while they know they are living and can repent, and not wait for something that might not come.

With peace and your brother in Christ also,

BBob,

 

False insinuations and allegations!!

Now that I what I call a really classy 'ad hominem' attack!

NOT!!

It makes little difference, apparently, that I have already at least three times on these pages, shown this implication and insinuation to be false.

But I guess you have apparently never heard of Increase and Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, Justin, Irenaeus, and the other more than a dozen that I have previously cited, more than once, that did believe in "a literal millenium", and all of who were around before John Nelson Darby was even born. including a Baptist who apparently preached this, right here in KY (and probably even in my own home church, which was established in 1782), within a few years of the settling of the area, before KY was a state.

It makes absolutely no difference whether or not any of these individuals you or I cite were right in interpretation, but they did in fact, preach it. That is history! :BangHead: And it would be just as wrong for me to deny that someone preached what you believe before the Reformation, in the same vein.

John Nelson Darby, just as the rest of us, has to answer for what he preached, I guess. But he does not have to answer for supposedly "inventing" some or all of these teachings.

'Popularizing' some of them?? Maybe.
'Inventing' them?? Not a chance!!!

Ed

 

They did in fact get in trouble over it also...................:thumbs: Some of them anyway.

BBob,

 

Hi all,

I want to first say that I see it as Brother Bob and Convicted1 do, but I have a couple of questions concerning this doctrine. I will admit, it may be because of tradition, but I honestly see it that way in scripture. When Christ returns, it is all over. We go with Him forever. Anyway, to the questions...

1. During the tribulation, who will be here on earth?
2. What about those that died years ago? Do they get a second chance?

Israel was looking for Christ to come and for the most part, they are still looking, even thou He has come and went. They still look for Him to come the first time because He didn't come in the manner they thought. Even though they were told over and over, they still couldn't see it. We look back and think how foolish they were.
Now, many are looking for these signs and tribulations and thinking it will play out they way they have it figured out. When we put ourselves in that position, we become like Israel. We will not accept anything that doesn't fit our model. We will keep looking for signs to fit our theology and reject everything else.

I believe Christ can come back at any moment. He won't come back until all has been fulfilled. So I believe all these signs have already happened. They may not have happened in a way that we thought they would happen, or even when they would happen, but I feel they have happened.

Anyway, I hope to hear from you all concerning this.

 

See further:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad hominem

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/ad_hominem.html

That should keep one busy for a couple of minutes, anyway.

{Sigh!} Not true!

Not one of the individuals I have cited "got in trouble" over these teachings, except perhaps one with the Roman Catholic Church. Not one of the earlier ones were ever even questioned, by any early church council, with their teachings, nor were these teachings even addressed (unlike Marcion, Pelagius and Arius, for three examples), by such councils.

It is also why the latter ones I have mentioned, in my two years here, were mostly all Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, and Congregationalists. They were not told what they had to think, by any sort of church hierarchy or group, such as- The "Old Regular Baptists" (from 1825) or the Triennial Convention, the 'daddy' of the 'politically engineered' "Southern Baptists" (from 1814). They weren't around in those days!

Ed

 

If you know that much, then you know there were two different doctrines in early teachings of which one of the thousand year literal doctrine, included "sensious" living, fulfilling the desires of the flesh. Also, you know that Justin was called before someone to explain his teachings of a literal kingdom, for we have discussed it. You cherry pick, I do give what you hold to also. Also, the thousand years started before Christians. It was a Jewish doctrine, of which is suspected was picked up by some Christians.

You also know, for we have discussed it, that for hundreds of years, that a literal 1000 years was considered a heretic doctrine.

Even Phillip Schaff, the Historian said so in his history of the Christian movement.

(sigh Ed, when are you going to learn)?

BBob,

 

Outsider, being we believe it will be a quick work the Lord will do when He comes again, we must be able to answer the doctrine that Israel will be restored. The following is how I see it, and hope it helps. First question is "are we under the New Covenant", and if so, then the scripture has been fulfilled that the Lord said He would make a "new" covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Second: All of Israel was not cut off, only a portion of them, so where is the greater part of Israel. Well scripture says "all of Israel, are not Israel and the first Christians were made up of Israel.

Jer 31:31¶Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

It was Israel He came to and sent His Apostles to preach to and told them not to preach to the Gentiles, until He broke down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Greek and made us all "one".


Hbr 8:8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

It seems they do not believe this covenant has been made with Israel, when the Gentiles are never mentioned when making the "new" covenant. If we are under the Grace covenant, then it has been made with Israel. It has to be, to fulfill scripture.


Jhn 1:11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

So, a portion of Israel was saved when the Lord came and those were who He used to set up the Grace Covenant.

Now a portion were cutoff for unbelief, until the "fulness of the Gentiles". Apparently they believe that means until the very last Gentile is saved. I believe it means when salvation come to the nations of Gentiles, for Apostle Paul thought that he might be able to "save" some of them, of which would be impossible if the fulness of the Gentiles is yet to come. I believe the Gentiles have the same right "now" as anyone to drink of the water of life.

Rom 11:14If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.

Rom 11:15For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?

I am not making this stuff up, it is the scripture and Paul surely thought he might save some of them and it was Paul who gave us scripture of them being cut off for unbelief.



Here is what scripture says happened to the Gentiles and Israel, not I, but scripture.

1.
Eph 2:12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Question: Are we still aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, having no hope, without God in the World?


2.
Eph 2:13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Question: were we made nigh to Israel by the blood of the Lamb?

3.
Eph 2:14¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Question: has the middle wall of partition been broken down between Israel and the Gentiles??

4.
Eph 2:15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Question: Has God brought together Israel and the Gentile, so they are one??


5.
Eph 2:19¶Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Question: Are we still strangers and foreigners or are we fellowcitizens with the saints and the household of God??


6.
Rom 2:28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Question: Are they only Jews the ones who have been circumcised outwardly???


7.
Rom 2:29But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.
Question: Have we been circumcised of the heart???

If we are not under the "new" covenant, then we are all lost.


BBob,

 

Brother Bob,

Amen! Preach it! :thumbs:

God only have one family, not divided family. Both Gentiles and Jews are already reconciled together by Calvary at once 2,000 years ago. No more separated or divide again forever.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

#1. It won't be the church making sin offering -- it'll be Israel again.

#2. Offerings will be "commemorative" like our communion.

#3. None of your response answers to the issue, friend. The temple is clearly Millennial and clearly God's/Messiah's throne will be on earth!

Your next evasion tactic :laugh: ought to be to try to fit Ezek 43 -- or, actually, 40-48 -- somewhere else in history than when this clearly shows that it is.

skypair

 

Jews and Gentiles (including some left behind of the church).

In the MK that follows, 1) the OT saints, 2) the martryred trib saints, and 3) deceased infants and mentally handicapped from all generations will be resurrected in the postrib "resurrection of the just." The OT and trib saints were believers and now get to receive the Holy Spirit of sanctification. They will never die again but will be whisked off the planet via rapture at the end of the MK when Satan is released and surrounds Jerusalem once again leading the rebellion.

Infants and the mental cases get a first chance to believe and receive the Spirit.

skypair

 

Skypair,

When Christ was cross, he said, "It is finished." His ghost gave up, at the same time, the veil at the temple was torn down from top to bottom. Showe that the daily sacrifices are finished. God doesn't need physical building of temple and animal sacrifices anymore. Because Jesus Christ is the only perfect sacrifice for us all.

Why should we need another daily sacrifice again?

Was Christ's sacrifice failed?

Israel forget that Christ is the only one perfect sacrifice. They still doing daily sacrifices today. They have look up at Jesus. He is the only answer.

No. We do not need another daily sacrifice again anymore. Christ is the sacrifice, that we need.

Also, we are now the priests, we have the right to ask Christ for forgive our sins daily 24 hours.

When Christ shall come again. We do not need another physical building temple, and daily scarifices. We shall worshipping toward Jesus Christ only, because he is our sacrifice. All Jews and Gentiles will worship Christ in person at second advent.

Praise God for Jesus, what he has done for us 2000 years ago.

Christ said, "it is finished." He fulfilled it. Noe, he is our sacrifice. We can worshipping toward him only, not depend on earthly high priests anymore. Amen.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

But God has a way of wanting Israel to REMEMBER Him and what He has brought them through. And to the lost living in the MK, it will be a witness to the alternative to believing on Christ. It is said that any nation that does not bring a sacrifice from year to year will be stricken with drought!

You're telling me all these things the "don't need." Have you consulted GOD on this??? My Bible is pretty clear that, whether you think one is necessary or not, there will be one -- and sacrifices -- and God Jesus on the throne. I never claim that any of this is NECESSARY -- my claim is that God promises it.

skypair

 

RE: millinial (sic) questions

Of course I know that there were different ideas about exchatology. I have never claimed there were not. In fact, you seem to think there were only "two views" - there was one "major" idea that took this teaching about a 'kingdom' as symbolic language, and some abberational one that held to a literal kingdom. This is simply not the case. Views then, as now, ran the gamut. In fact, most of what you have espoused is an amalgamation of the views of a modified Preterism and A-millenialism.

You are correct that 'chiliasm', or the belief in a literal kingdom originated from the OT Scriptures, where Christians are concerned. The Scriptures do speak (and had already spoken for 400 years, and as also do the NT) of a future coming kingdom, David's throne, etc,. in what seems to be a literal manner. (Ps. 132:11; Is. 9:7; Dan. 2:44; 7:18; Lk. 1:21; 22:30; II Tim. 4:1)

The Scriptures also speak of an aspect of the Kingdom that is already here and always was here. (Ps. 145:13, Dan. 4:3; Mt. 6:13) I will fully agree that his aspect is too often overlooked. I do not think I do, personally, but some do overlook this. (Sometimes it is overlooked in reaction to other views, such as A-millenialism and Preterism as well, even if unintentionally.) This aspect was here before the Lord Jesus Christ was on the earth, and repeated the promise of a coming kingdom. He did not become the King of the Jews, at some point in His earthly life or after the Crucifixion; He was born, King of the Jews! (Matt. 2:2; Jn. 18:37)

But these differences, unlike those of the nature of Christ, for an example, were not ever considered a test of orthodoxy. This is what Justin said, in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.

I would say that Justin, just as most of us today, did have a pretty high opinion of his own views, however.

Nor was there ever an early church council that even got into this ongoing discussion. For now the 5th time, Justin was not called before anyone, in the church to explain anything!, unless it was in his own local church, of which we have no record. [Have you ever been asked to explain something by some of your members in your church? I know I have, as have most, I would say. Not everyone is going to 'get' everything you or I say the first time, from my experience. If the apostles such as Peter and Barnabas (explained by Paul) and Apollos (yes, he was an apostle - I Cor. 1:12-13; 2:10,13; 3:4-9; 4:5-9)(explained by Aquilla and Priscilla) needed something explained to them, and I know I have, why would I possibly expect everyone else to "get it', automatically, the first time?]

With all respect, you are continually and totally misreading the meaning of the title of Justin's "Apologies". This word is the English for the Greek "apologia" which does not mean the same as apology, today, in the English language, where it has come to mean an admission of something (or someone) admitting being mistaken or wrong. For Justin, it meant "The Ddefense and proclamation of the faith". Under no circumstances was he admitting of being wrong, but proclaiming that the Christian faith he and other believers were teaching were 'right' views. He was martyred for this view.

The elements of pagan teachings that attempted to gain entrance into this, such as the "'sensous living, fulfilling the desires of the flesh" of the Gnostics was denied and dismissed by orthodoxy. Those such as Justin, Irenaeus (Against Heresies, or Lat. Adversus heresus) and Hippolytus, while recognizing that there might be "a baby in that bathwater" did not throw everything out in any wholesale manner, but evaluated everything against Scripture, as they saw it. And even they were of of uniform beliefs, as the quote above shows.

For example, Justin did not hold to anything near a "modern dispensational approach", but rather would be classified as an 'historical premillenialist'. A relatively modern day Baptist counterpart would be Charles Spurgeon. Irenaeus and Tetullian did not exactly hold to this, although both held to a literal kingdom, and would be considered as "pre-tribulational, pre-millenialists". I am in this crowd, as well as such historic figures as Jonathan Edwards, among others, as are basically all "dispensationalists". I have yet to run across a "dispensationalist", who was not first, a "pre-millenialist", but I guess there could be some out there.

While there may have been an element of "1000 yr." idea before the NT, Biblically, John in Revelation, is the only Biblical writer to use this term. There are no 'figures' associated with any duration in the OT, and any Jewish ideas of this were merely speculation. (Sounds a bit like some speculation of today, hunh?) "Chiliasm", although similar in some points, does not equal "Millenialism".

And again, the fact that some (mainly the Roman Catholic Church, which still today considers this teaching as 'heretical') consider this as "heresy' does not make it so, any more than considering 'A-millenialism' (which I consider to be an eliding and/or a lack of proper study and understanding of Scripture, basically) or post-millenialism' (which I actually consider to be a view that is either "pollyanna" or "stupid", depending on my attitude, at that given moment) as heresy. I have never claimed either to be 'heresy', or opposed either as 'un-orthodox', in a similar vein as Justin.

I am somewhat aware of at least some of what Schaff has said. Out of curiosity, do you happen to possess in hard copy, and/or have read Phillip Schaff's 8 Volume set of History of the Christian Church? Just wonderin'!

FTR, I do have it and have read between 1/2 and 2/3 of the hundreds of pages in it.

Probably when the headache of correcting mis-statements about church history gets to be more than I can stand! :BangHead:

Ed

 

I suspect the 'A-millenialism' consider the literal thousand years doctrine to be a lack of study and understanding also.

You and I have rode this horse around the stable several times and still haven't found the gate to get in the barn............

No, I don't have a hard copy, I wish I did. Justin had to give an answer before someone who had authority over him. I have the quote, but we been there too. Someone thought he was advocating a kingdom over them, if I understand it right, to which Justin responded and said the Kingdom he spoke of, was not of the world.

All you and I both have to go on, is fragments of comments made by these early Christians. I don't disagree with you at all on the early times and the different views on the Thousand years. It is just that you follow one belief and I follow the other. (I Think!) I respect you veiw and do not feel it makes either of us a "less" Christian.

BBob,

 

If you do ever get access to Schaff's History, you might want to verify that the "quotation" you have posted repeatedly is actually there. Those of us who have read Schaff can't seem to find it anywhere.