millinial questions

[Brother Bob]

THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER I -- ADDRESS.
To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid.

BBob,

 

[skypair]

You seem to base your entire eschatology on Ezekial. You don't seem to consider that Jesus said they would all come out of the grave, at the same time, the church lifted up and the rest stand at the GWT.

Well, you just ADMITTED more than one resurrection -- at last! Bob, the only reason I focused on the temple in Ezekiel is because you won't believe "near truths."

11-2-5 Prophecies With Changed Fulfillment

[/B]Prophecies whose intended fulfilment was changed into something else

No, Bob -- not a "changed fulfillment" but a DUAL fulfillment! One for Israel and one for the church! You're right -- one spiritual and one physical! Just like Pentecost, etal.

But Bob, if you claim that the fulfillment was "resceduled," don't you see that God has "reneged" on a promise!! No, Bob. That's not right, is it? You don't wanna go there, Bob.

Acts 15: B]How do you get around Acts 15 that states that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Prophency that David's tabernacle be restored. Was not this temple of Ezekial a part of David's Kingdom??[/B]

Yeah -- DUAL fulfillment, right?

Jesus was to be born to sit on the throne of David, of which He now is reigning.

Not yet, Bob. You're getting ahead of God.

Another thing I want you to consider --- even in the OT, not keeping the Sabbaths got Israel into Worldly problems, right? 70 years in Babylon for Sabbaths missed, right? Sacrifices had to do, even in the OT, with earthly penalties and judgments.

Bob, we need to work on a NT model for sacrifices/communion. I am not certain that "I understand all that I know" (a typical pilot admission) about this either. But I know it ain't your way and it may not be my way either! :laugh: I enjoy studying it and I think we can establish some truths between us, don't you?

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Well, you just ADMITTED more than one resurrection -- at last! Bob, the only reason I focused on the temple in Ezekiel is because you won't believe "near truths."

You must be kidding. I have always stated that Jesus Christ was the First resurrection and the General resurrection is yet to come.

No, Bob -- not a "changed fulfillment" but a DUAL fulfillment! One for Israel and one for the church! You're right -- one spiritual and one physical! Just like Pentecost, etal.

But Bob, if you claim that the fulfillment was "resceduled," don't you see that God has "reneged" on a promise!! No, Bob. That's not right, is it? You don't wanna go there, Bob.

Must I show you how many times God has changed His mind with Israel. I am sure you know of many.

Yeah -- DUAL fulfillment, right?

Not yet, Bob. You're getting ahead of God.

Not according to Acts and Peter.

Another thing I want you to consider --- even in the OT, not keeping the Sabbaths got Israel into Worldly problems, right? 70 years in Babylon for Sabbaths missed, right? Sacrifices had to do, even in the OT, with earthly penalties and judgments.

Bob, we need to work on a NT model for sacrifices/communion. I am not certain that "I understand all that I know" (a typical pilot admission) about this either. But I know it ain't your way and it may not be my way either! :laugh: I enjoy studying it and I think we can establish some truths between us, don't you?

skypair

Well, so far we have not got angry with each other, or at least I don't think so.

I was wondering if you are a pilot, how high did you go. There is not much oxygen up there and it can damage the brain you know............:laugh:

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

The Temple of God build will NOT have an Outer Court

I agree.

Just saw this in a "long-dead" thread.

In 1969-1976 I was qualified in the state of Oklahoma to teach logic to 15-year-olds.

Too bad you cannot 'import' this skill to the Baptist Board! :laugh: :laugh:

Actually, the reason I am posting this is to ask if you might have any idea of what became of Mel Miller? I know he was an aged man (86- then, 87- now) but he just seems to have stopped posting suddenly, about a year ago. Just wonderin'.

I often disagreed with his conclusions, but still always enjoyed his posts.

Thanks,

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

In 1969-1976 I was qualified in the state of Oklahoma to teach logic to 15-year-olds.

Note, I didn't say I successfully tought logic to 15-year-olds only that I was QUALIFIED. :laugh:

Archives in bbs (bulletin boards) are like anchovies on pizza - everybody knows about them, hardly anybody uses them.

 

[EdSutton]

Note, I didn't say I successfully tought logic to 15-year-olds only that I was QUALIFIED. :laugh:

Archives in bbs (bulletin boards) are like anchovies on pizza - everybody knows about them, hardly anybody uses them.

Point was, I found the statement humorous. :laugh:

What about Mel Miller?

Any idea about his status?

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Strange how the Lord brings scripture to your mind.

Rom 12:3¶For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Sometimes there are threads on here that do not interest me and I just stay out of them.


BBob,

 

[Ed Edwards]

Point was, I found the statement humorous. :laugh:

What about Mel Miller?

Any idea about his status?

Ed

His web site: http://www.lastday.net/

 

[EdSutton]

I merely ask a question about the political figure, you took it in its worst form, as usually for you.

If one wants to "attack" me, have at it. I am here. I can defend myselk, both personally, and with what I believe and teach.

I am glad to see you have availed yourself of the opportunity I offered!

FTR, the "political figure" charges and insinuations were answered by at least than two others, yet persisted.

I have posted more sources where Justin had to give an account for his doctrine of Millennium, than you have given that he did not.

Please humor me then, and repeat the sources. I cannot find them, specifically, but remember you have made the statements. If I have missed any sources, I apologize in advance.

BTW, the following post of snippets you posted, from Justin's First Apology, are not, in any way, applicable, as I have stated before. I have read the entire First Apology (as well as the Second Apology), which Justin addressed to the Emperor, Antonius Pius, his two sons and the entire Roman Senate. Justin petitioned them to hear his charges, made on behalf of all the Christians, against the unjust persecutions against the Christian faith, and not the other way around to answer any charges, as you have repeated implied, regardless of where you are getting this supposed info. In our language he was not "apologizing" for anything! You are reading a modern English definition of "Apology" into the Latin language, as opposed to seeing this as it was, namely, from the Greek "apologia", meaning, the Defense of the Faith, which he ably presented, here. The Second Apology is similarly addressed, as the petition of Justin to the Roman Senate, as a pleason behalf of all Christians for fair treatment, both Apologies with much doctrinal content.

But he is not even close to being called before any court or council, such as the kangaroo court that he would later face, and be martyred by the Emperor in 165.

You have been exposed.

Absolutely impossible! Since I have never tried to hide anything in the first place, and everything I have written on not only this subjet, but any subject, in two years in over 6000 posts openly, can be found merely by looking at it, or the sources I have cited from time to time, there is and was nothing to uncover, either. One cannot 'expose' something that has never been hidden in the first place, is blatantly obvious, and is already an "open book".

BTW, it is ludicrous for you to even suggest that I should give a "source" for something that is non-existent, or never happened. How can one possibly do such? The fact is, however, that there is no record of such occurring. How many 'sources' could or would exist to say that something never happened, unless someone made the unsubstantiated charge that it did? Even that very suggestion is asinine.

It is on a par with some "Tom Jones" saying that "Pastor John Doe" has obviously not only been beating his wife, but also having an affair with the next door neighbor lady, because there is no record that he has not. Is there any evidence of such? Well, no, not any direct evidence. Still it must have happened, unless he can prove otherwise.

One cannot prove a 'negative' proposition, which is some of that logic for 15yr. olds, that Ed Edwards mentioned, and I quoted in a post above. Get real, here.

It is not your call to tell me not to quote or talk about Justin or whom ever I want to. I will make that decision myself.

And I have never told anyone whom to quote or not quote. Or who they should talk about. I have disagreed with the conclusions some have drawn from some quotes.

You used his name to defend Millennium and now, I find that he even used the 1 day as a thousand years for a while. I don't blame you for not wanting me to read about him, for the more I read, the more it is a joke you used him to defend Millennium.

This is simply inaccurate. I never brought up or mentioned Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, or any of the several other early Christians I named, or such latter day ones as Cotton Mather, Increase Mather, Jonathan Edwards, Morgan Edwards, or any of the rest for the purpose of "to support Millenium", in any way. I did bring at least 20 different names up, including all the above, up to combat a false generalization that you put forth suggesting that 'none of the early church believed this (and it was considered heresy), apart from a few heretics', and that this teaching of a literal millenium suddenly appeared (in two different centuries, no less, in two different posts), as a latter day invention of John Nelson Darby. That is simply not the case, when each and every one of these I mentioned were long dead before John N. Darby was even born! My sole reason in this, is and was historical accuracy! As to wanting someone to "read about him" (whomever him may be, in a aprticular setting), that is precisely what I want someone to do -and not just read about what someone else said, where another 'they' said that 'they' "read about him".

I do, at least have to give you credit for finally checking out and acknowledging that an alleged quote was not from Philip Schaff, but was from one of those other "theys" that put forth the inaccuracy, who was not afraid to let a little fact or two get in the way of his own ideas.

I wish you would quit following me around to see if...

Like the late Will Rogers allegedly said about Congress -

Somebody needs to keep an eye on that crowd!

If not me, then who?

I'll gladly relinquish this role, to any willing and worthy successors such as Linda64 or skypair, for examples!

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

At least if you are following me around, you are leaving others alone.................

I am glad to see you have availed yourself of the opportunity I offered!

FTR, the "political figure" charges and insinuations were answered by at least than two others, yet persisted.Please humor me then, and repeat the sources. I cannot find them, specifically, but remember you have made the statements. If I have missed any sources, I apologize in advance.

BTW, the following post of snippets you posted, from Justin's First Apology, are not, in any way, applicable, as I have stated before. I have read the entire First Apology (as well as the Second Apology), which Justin addressed to the Emperor, Antonius Pius, his two sons and the entire Roman Senate. Justin petitioned them to hear his charges, made on behalf of all the Christians, against the unjust persecutions against the Christian faith, and not the other way around to answer any charges, as you have repeated implied, regardless of where you are getting this supposed info. In our language he was not "apologizing" for anything! You are reading a modern English definition of "Apology" into the Latin language, as opposed to seeing this as it was, namely, from the Greek "apologia", meaning, the Defense of the Faith, which he ably presented, here. The Second Apology is similarly addressed, as the petition of Justin to the Roman Senate, as a pleason behalf of all Christians for fair treatment, both Apologies with much doctrinal content.

But he is not even close to being called before any court or council, such as the kangaroo court that he would later face, and be martyred by the Emperor in 165.Absolutely impossible! Since I have never tried to hide anything in the first place, and everything I have written on not only this subjet, but any subject, in two years in over 6000 posts openly, can be found merely by looking at it, or the sources I have cited from time to time, there is and was nothing to uncover, either. One cannot 'expose' something that has never been hidden in the first place, is blatantly obvious, and is already an "open book".

Wasn't long after the Apologies, that he was killed. Also, he was Martyred, but yet you say his doctrine was incorrect. You think we should ask that the Martyr, be taken away????????

BTW, it is ludicrous for you to even suggest that I should give a "source" for something that is non-existent, or never happened. How can one possibly do such? The fact is, however, that there is no record of such occurring. How many 'sources' could or would exist to say that something never happened, unless someone made the unsubstantiated charge that it did? Even that very suggestion is asinine.

It is on a par with some "Tom Jones" saying that "Pastor John Doe" has obviously not only been beating his wife, but also having an affair with the next door neighbor lady, because there is no record that he has not. Is there any evidence of such? Well, no, not any direct evidence. Still it must have happened, unless he can prove otherwise.

I know "Tom Jones" and he did not say that about "John Doe", you are making that up Ed!! Shame..........

One cannot prove a 'negative' proposition, which is some of that logic for 15yr. olds, that Ed Edwards mentioned, and I quoted in a post above. Get real, here.
And I have never told anyone whom to quote or not quote. Or who they should talk about. I have disagreed with the conclusions some have drawn from some quotes.This is simply inaccurate. I never brought up or mentioned Justin, Tertullian, Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, or any of the several other early Christians I named, or such latter day ones as Cotton Mather, Increase Mather, Jonathan Edwards, Morgan Edwards, or any of the rest for the purpose of "to support Millenium", in any way. I did bring at least 20 different names up, including all the above, up to combat a false generalization that you put forth suggesting that 'none of the early church believed this (and it was considered heresy), apart from a few heretics', and that this teaching of a literal millenium suddenly appeared (in two different centuries, no less, in two different posts), as a latter day invention of John Nelson Darby. That is simply not the case, when each and every one of these I mentioned were long dead before John N. Darby was even born! My sole reason in this, is and was historical accuracy! As to wanting someone to "read about him" (whomever him may be, in a aprticular setting), that is precisely what I want someone to do -and not just read about what someone else said, where another 'they' said that 'they' "read about him".

I do, at least have to give you credit for finally checking out and acknowledging that an alleged quote was not from Philip Schaff, but was from one of those other "theys" that put forth the inaccuracy, who was not afraid to let a little fact or two get in the way of his own ideas.Like the late Will Rogers allegedly said about Congress - If not me, then who?

I'll gladly relinquish this role, to any willing and worthy successors such as Linda64 or skypair, for examples!

Ed

There is absolutely nothing historical about your post. Justin's first and second apology was an attempt to ward off any punishment for what he preached, which included the Millennium.

Linda64 and Skypair were already here before you jumped in with your remarks, especially about it being a "dead thread", for example. You going to the archives and getting a post made by Ed Edwards and posting it, for it was nowhere in this thread that I could find. That post also was a poor attempt to "put down" this thread.

As far as the doctrine of a literal kingdom being considered heretic, there is more historical records that it was heretic than there was that it was a sound doctrine.

You surely did not come in this thread to debate. You had other reasons which are obvious. I never knew about Justin Martyr, until you posted his name and I started some research on him and found out that though he supported a literal kingdom, it seemed he was all over the place on what it is.

The truth will stand when the world is on fire and it tears down your little brown building of doctrine on the Millennium. You don't have much support for the Millennium before the 17th century and neither does anyone else. You have the Chillisium and sensous fleshly living.

As long as you can stand the heat, come on in, the water is fine, for I will continue to post that Justin was trying to save his skin, by the apologies. Why else would he have written them to the Emperor. It seems that Linda64 knows more about Justin, that you do, or ever did know.

As far as Skypair, his last post was that he was not sure he was right about the Millennium, but enjoyed discussing, which is far from what you posted. You were not even in the thread at the time you felt it necessary to come in and call it a "dead thread". You fail to recognize that there are others on here that like to use this board also, and even though you say that what I posted about Justin was untrue, I say it is true.

If you can't read it after I posted all of those times you said, why should I go back and post it again. Justin's apology is too long to put on here, but the fact of the matter is that Justin was attempting to ward off persecution from the Emperor, from what he was preaching, and part of that being the Millennium.

BBob,

Continued:

 

[Brother Bob]

What purpose would Justin have in writing the two Apologies to the Emperor of Rome? If you read the Apologies, it seems Justin was trying to ward off persecution of himself and Christians and in particular the Millennium, of which Justin said it was not "of this world".

Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God

The Premillennialism of Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.]Justin was a Christian apologist who battled the Judiast Heresy and Greek Philosophy. He was martyred in Rome in 165 AD. Justin was a chiliast, and probably a premillennialist. He did believe in a literal 1,000 year reign, and believed that dead saints would be resurrected and take part in the millennium.

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT.)

Seems that Justin did not consider those who did not believe in a Millennium to be any less Christian than He was.

It says that several Catholics reject it. A-Mill was around long before Augustine, as were there several doctrines of the Millennium. Some believed it would be a "sensous" time where all the desires of the flesh would be fulfilled.

There are others on this very thread that called Justin a "heretic".

Also, you might think I am the only one on here that believes the Millennium of over, but then again, you have not read my pm's.

BBob,

​

The Apology

​

The Dialogue is a later work than the First Apology; the date of composition of the latter, from the fact that it was addressed to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus, must fall between 147 and 161. The reference to Felix as governor of Egypt, since this can only be the Lucius Munatius Felix whom the Oxyrhynchus papyri name as prefect September 13, 151, fixes the date still more exactly. The Chronicon of Eusebius gives 152-153 as the date of the attacks of Crescens. What is designated as the Second Apology was written as a supplement to the first, on account of certain proceedings which had in the mean time taken place in Rome before Lollius Urbicus as prefect of the city, which must have been between 150 and 157.


We can see the Apologies were written around 147 up to 157, by the time he had written his second apology, which was a supplement to the first. Then the Emperor he was writing all these apologies to, had him killed around 165.

If you don't see the connection between the apologies and his death, then you must have your head in the sand, OR just hate to admit to me that I was right all along.............. It probably was mostly because of the Apologies that he was Martyred.

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Bob,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Someone cut the AT&T cable (I'm in a new development) -- AGAIN!!

Ezek 43:22 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.

Did you not read what I said? That "droughts" come on account of SIN even in the MK??

skypair

 

[skypair]

I was wondering if you are a pilot, how high did you go. There is not much oxygen up there and it can damage the brain you know............:laugh:

Cute, but actually that put me closer to God --- and it shows!! :laugh:

OK -- 2 resurrections. One Christ (long time ago) and one "general." So what about the rapture? Or is it the GWT that you are missing?

Get this straight, Bob --- God can "change His mind." But He cannot take back a promise. You should know the difference.

We can get away from Ezekiel if you like. All you have to do is confess with God that Ezek 40-48 is the Millennial temple with sacrifices yet to occur (IOW, the TRUTH) and we can discuss some other passages with which you seem to be a) totally ignorant or b) which you have totally alligorized.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Cute, but actually that put me closer to God --- and it shows!! :laugh:

OK -- 2 resurrections. One Christ (long time ago) and one "general." So what about the rapture? Or is it the GWT that you are missing?

Get this straight, Bob --- God can "change His mind." But He cannot take back a promise. You should know the difference.

We can get away from Ezekiel if you like. All you have to do is confess with God that Ezek 40-48 is the Millennial temple with sacrifices yet to occur (IOW, the TRUTH) and we can discuss some other passages with which you seem to be a) totally ignorant or b) which you have totally alligorized.(sic)

skypair

What was the purpose of binding Satan, if there will be sin and animal sacrifices in the MK. Your description of Ezekial 43 completely denies the eschatology of Jesus Christ and is not worth the time. I have went over and over it, but you don't seem to get it. Maybe the Lord had your TV cable sliced for a reason, he was tired of you distorting the scripture.

Houston we got a problem!!!

(1) Christ's visible, personal coming is not here--not a word of it. The revelator saw no such coming at the opening of the millennial period. He tells us what he did see, viz., a mighty angel coming down from heaven with a great chain in his hand; also the old serpent; but not a hint that he saw the glorious Son of God bursting through the heavens.

Are you raising "red" heifers now, or do you think you will have time later...............

BBob,

 

[skypair]

What was the purpose of binding Satan, if there will be sin and animal sacrifices in the MK.

Proves that sin comes from US, not just Satan!!

Your description of Ezekial 43 completely denies the eschatology of Jesus Christ and is not worth the time. I have went over and over it, but you don't seem to get it.

Yeah, that's what they said in Mal 3:13-14 but they didn't know that God was making up a "book of remembrance" (3:16-18) for those who "spake often one to another .. that feared and called upon His name." Regretably, you could care less.

(1) Christ's visible, personal coming is not here--not a word of it.

Who says it has???

The revelator saw no such coming at the opening of the millennial period. He tells us what he did see, viz., a mighty angel coming down from heaven with a great chain in his hand; also the old serpent;

Back up a chapter "Mr. Get-ahead-of-God!!" :laugh: Who do YOU see riding a white horse -- coming with His armies from heaven?

I know this all must be "blinding" rather than "illuminating" to you in the frenzy you are in to defend yourself! Bob -- count to 10 ... look at Rev 19 before you jump to Rev 20.

BTW, did you have more than one point (1)? Or did that exhaust your knowledge of the issue? :laugh:

Hey -- great to see that YOUR internet wasn't disconnected by SATAN!! :laugh:

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Proves that sin comes from US, not just Satan!!

Yeah, that's what they said in Mal 3:13-14 but they didn't know that God was making up a "book of remembrance" (3:16-18) for those who "spake often one to another .. that feared and called upon His name." Regretably, you could care less.

Who says it has???

Back up a chapter "Mr. Get-ahead-of-God!!" :laugh: Who do YOU see riding a white horse -- coming with His armies from heaven?

I know this all must be "blinding" rather than "illuminating" to you in the frenzy you are in to defend yourself! Bob -- count to 10 ... look at Rev 19 before you jump to Rev 20.

BTW, did you have more than one point (1)? Or did that exhaust your knowledge of the issue? :laugh:

Hey -- great to see that YOUR internet wasn't disconnected by SATAN!! :laugh:

skypair

You are "Johnny come lately", you are a little bit late to the party Skypair, could be the oxygen again. Fly a little lower.

Ezekiel 43:14. By these settles or ledges the altar was narrowed towards the top. "The ascent shall look toward the east;" this ascent was an inclined plane. But these settles, or more properly ledges, as Bp. Newcome translates, may be thus computed. The altar itself was ten feet high and twenty broad; the same as that of Solomon,

I find not where in Ezekial the mention of a thousand years, please give me chapter and verse??

You can't even convince Ed Ewards of this temple.

You need to get in a back room and discuss these sacrifices before spouting off!!!

Do you believe also in the animal sacrifices??

Brother Bob: // Hbr 10:12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; //

Ed Edwards: No, Jesus paid it all. I will not be building a Temple during the Tribulation Period. I will be GONE GONE GONE.

Reading some literature, it appears that Ezekiel might have been describing Soloman's Temple?

They have already "cleaned up" and went home.

Skypair; Get this straight, Bob --- God can "change His mind." But He cannot take back a promise. You should know the difference.

Did you say, the "new covenant" was given unto the Gentiles instead of Israel??? God made the "promise" to 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:

BBob,

 

[Jerome]

John Darby and others came along in the 17th century and began to preach it to be literal reign.

FYI: Darby lived in the nineteenth century, not the seventeenth century.

It was leaders of the early English Particular Baptists, such as Benjamin Keach and Hanserd Knollys, who in the seventeenth century preached from the Bible Christ's literal millennial reign on earth.

Sadly, many Baptists, including some who purport to hold to the old Baptist ways, have forsaken the biblical teaching of the early Baptists and have returned to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

 

[Brother Bob]

FYI: Darby lived in the nineteenth century, not the seventeenth century.

I stand corrected, thanks.

It was leaders of the early English Particular Baptists, such as Benjamin Keach and Hanserd Knollys, who in the seventeenth century preached from the Bible Christ's literal millennial reign on earth.

Sadly, many Baptists, including some who purport to hold to the old Baptist ways, have forsaken the biblical teaching of the early Baptists and have returned to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

Jerome; when you speak of the "old Baptist ways", you mean from the 17th century don't you, because before that is was preached to be a "spiritual" kingdom.

the early church did evidence hints of what later would become Amillennialism. For example, Origen (185-254) popularized the allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture, and in doing so, laid a hermeneutical basis for the view that the promised kingdom of Christ was spiritual and not earthly in nature.

Clerk reads [from Keach's catechism for children]. "Question: How then shall it go with the saints? Answer: Oh very well! it is the Day that they have long'd for: then they shall hear that Sentence, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you: And so shall they reign with Christ on the Earth a thousand Years, &c."
Judge: This is contrary to the Creed in the Book of Common-Prayer, and is an old Heresy, which was cast out of the Church a thousand Years ago, and was likewise condemned by the Council of Constance about five hundred Years ago, and hath lain dead ever since, till now this Rascal hath revived it.

No where in scripture does it say Christ will reign "on Earth", that I know of.

John Calvin (1536)
"But a little later there followed the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error does not support them. For the number "one thousand" (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth."
"For when we apply to it the measure of our own understanding, what can we conceive that is not gross and earthly? So it happens that like beasts our senses attract us to what appeals to our flesh, and we grasp at what is at hand. So we see that the Chialists (i.e. those who believed that Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years) fell into a like error. Jesus intended to banish from the disciples' minds a false impression regarding the earthly kingdom: for that, as He points out in a few words, consists of the preaching of the Gospel. They have no cause therefore to dream of wealth, luxury, power in the world or any other earthly thing when they hear that Christ is reigning when He subdues the world to Himself by the preaching of the Gospel. It follows from this that His reign is spiritual and not after the pattern of this world." - Comm. on Acts 1:8 (Torrance, VI, 32).

BBob

 

[Jerome]

Yes, old Baptist ways=17th century, because there weren't any Baptists before the seventeenth century, right?

 

[Brother Bob]

Yes, old Baptist ways=17th century, because there weren't any Baptists before the seventeenth century, right?

Jerome;
There is a part of me that holds all the way to John Baptist. But that is just me.

There were the AnaBaptist of the 16th Century.

BBob,