Pre-millenial dispensationalism - Baptist?

[Matt Black]

Steve,

I shall endeavour to be balanced in my response.

Firstly, Origen's opinion was accepted by the church; Montanus' was condemned by the church as heretical. I think I'll accept the church's wisdom on that one.

I've leafed through Adversus Haereses but can't for the life of me find where Irenaeus refers to the millenium. In Book 5, he waxes eloquent about the resurrection and the Second Coming, but I can't see any mention of how this is to occur time-wise.

Hyppolytus, in his treatise 'On Christ and Antichrist', seems to think that he is living in the time of the Great Tribulation and that only the Second Coming will end the rule of the Antichrist - no mention of rapture or resurrection until then. As a disciple of Irenaeus, that would suggest this was Irenaeus' view too.

Justin, in Dialogue with Trypho Chs 80 and 81, does state his pre-millenialist credentials, but admits his views on this point are outwith the mainstream view of the church.

(Pseudo-) Ephraim I have already mentioned. The term 'pseudo' says it all really. The real Ephraim from whom you quote was post-tribulationist - he expected to see the Antichrist and believed he would come before Jesus.

I would need more info from you with regard to the post-medieval characters to whom you refer.

Re; Irving - he was a proto-charismatic who heavily influenced Darby. Their problem was that there were a whole load of eccentrics around in their time offering 'prophecies' of the date of the end of the world (eg Southcott, White etc; their 'solution' was to adopt the imminent end of the world as proclaimed by these pseudo-prophets but with the neat trick of not committing themselves to a date. As part of this process, they formulated the new idea of the 'dispensations' (seven in total, IIRC)

Margaret McDonald was certainly ill and probably mildly insane when she gave her 'prophecies'.

I acccept your point that pre-mill pre-trib beliefs did exist prior to Darby but not with regard to pre-millenial dispensationalism and I'm afraid that you still haven't demonstrated that it was in anyway a mainstream view in church history as opposed to being a fringe belief.

Sorry, back to you! (Let me have more biog/ doctrinal info on the 1500s-1700s guys please)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[stevenlynch]

Matt,

Who cares about where the majority of opinion lies? Have you ever been to a Baptist Business meeting? I've never attended one yet that Satan didn't control 51%.

Your support for Origen's views accepted by the Church...which Church? The Roman Church that both you and I have problems with? It's his views that gave rise to what the RCC espouses today.

I'm browsing over Montanus' bio...I have a few problems with his doctrine too...but if I had to choose between the narrow and the broad gate...guess which I'm going through.

I'm a novice in being an advocate for Pre-Trib Rapture, so I haven't built up much data. So as for the rest of the material...I admit that I am simply parroting Dr. Missler's notes. I pay him to be a Biblical scholar while I just watch the news and make sure everybody keeps getting it (my day job--the Associated Press).

Don't take this as an equality with Miss McDonald...but don't you think folks thought Ezekiel was...and still is...pretty weird with his visions?

John the Baptist...pretty weird guy...eating locust..wearing animal skins.

Not really a mainstream "yes man".

those 1500-1700's guys...you are on your own. The Freedom that came from the Protestantism of the time though would account for the scholarship of these guys.

Matt... since we seem to making some progress toward some common ground here... would you mind Defining your view of

Dispensationlism

for me? I've got the feeling that I've made some mistake somewhere in not understanding your view on it.

thanks in advance...

from the birthplace of Nathan Bedford Forrest..home of the Forrest Rockets Football team (American football)

Steve

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Let's discuss on the covenant and the sacrifice.

Colossians 2:17 - "Which are a shadow of things to come; BUT(now) the body IS Christ."

The shadow of things of the Old Testament prophecies on Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice. During O.T. time, saints do not understand the shadow of things. Till Christ came to earth 2000 years ago, He fulfilled O.T. prophecies throguh Calvary. He said, "IT IS FINISHED!" - John 19:30. Means, he fulfilled O.T. prophecies concerning on Messiah and Calvary to put the sins away and put the sacrifices to end.

Hebrews 8:5 - "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for,See, saith he, THAT thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

It tells us, during 40 years in the wilderness under Moeses. God used the shadow of heavnely things to shewed to Moses and Israel by made tabernacle with spiritual or heavenly things. Also, offering the lamb for to forgive sins daily. These things are apply to Christ.

Hebrews 8:6 - "But NOW hath he(Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, but how much also HE is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."

It tells us, Christ made a better and new covenant through Calvary to put our sins away, and to fulfilled the old covenant through Calvary.

Hebrews 8:7 "For IF that first covenant had been faultLESS; then should NO place have been sought for the second."

It tells us, the point is, if suppoe the first covenant have no problem or fail, THEN there is no necessary for new or second covenant.

BUT

Hebrews 8:8 - "For 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 tells us, the first covenant is worthless, and no forgiveness, The Lord told to the prophets of the O.T. time, the days come, He shall make a new covenant with people. It already fulfilled through the Calvary include Dan. 9:27, and Mark 14:24 too.

Hebrews 8:13 - "In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. NOW that which decayeth and waxeth old is read to vanish away.

During Old Testament time, offerings and scarifices to forgive people's sins repeate and repeat. But, when Jesus came to earth, died on the cross. He said, "IT IS FINISHED! means, NO MORE offerings and sacrifices again forever and ever, because Christ is NOW our Lamb. WE do not need offerings and sacrifices with lambs again anymore, because Christ is our Lamb.

Heb. 9:24 - "For Christ is NOT entered into the holy places made with hands, WHICH ARE THE FIGURES of the true, but into heaven itself, NOW to appear in the presence of God for us:"

We do not need physical things like as we will have another offerings and sacrifices again. Even, we do NOT need another building of the temple again. Because Christ is our Lamb, also He is the Temple!

Heb. 10:3-4 "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins EVEY YEAR. For it is NOT possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

The offerings and sacrifices during O.T. time, can't forgive peopl's sins. Because these are animals, and they are not God.

Heb. 10:9-10 - "THen said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sancitified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for ALL."

It tell us, Christ put the old covenant aways by fulfilled them, that he made a new covenant through Calvary paid all our sins at once 2000 years ago.

My question, will ever offerings and sacrifices to be restoration again AFTER the second advent???

NOTHING!

Nothing anywhere in the book of Hebrews saying the offerings and sacrifices will doing again AFTER the second advent.

I have a point for you.

When after Jesus Christ come to earth at the second advent. A person looking for a pure lamb anywhere outside. When find a pure lamb, then slain it and to making an offering to God for forgive sin. Then, God saying to a person "I DO NOT NEED THAT!" LOOOOOOOOOOOOOKING AT JESUS!!!!

Second point, 1 Cor. 15:51-54 telling us, when ALL Christians shall be change into immortality body. Immortality is not dying, it is perfect and glory new body, even have NO sin and flesh in their body after they shall be all changed at the second advent.

All Christians will be 100% perfect and have NO sin. Then, WHY should we need another offering and sacrifice to forgive sin WHILE we shall be immortality after the second advent????

Are we under the old covenant now? Will they use old covenant REPEAT after the second advent???

Please think about it.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Matt Black]

Dear Steve

You ask which church? The same church which at the Council of Constantinople in 381 condemned the chiliism (milleniumism) which you espouse (thus confirming your view that some such as Justin did hold pre-mill views but also confirming my contention that such views were regarded as heretical by the rest of Christendom) and at the Council of Carthage in 397 finalised what was in the New Testament and what was out. So... if you want to reject this church, perhaps you'd also confirm that you're happy for any old stuff to go in the NT. Gnostic Gospel, anyone?

Dispensationalism - I'd have to ask my PB in-laws for more info on this, but IIRC it represents a significant departure from the usual Old Covenant/ New Covenant division of salvation history. It refers to a mode of theologising based on the way God relates to His people at different stages in this history. Its spiritual roots go back to Montanists such as Montanus himself and Tertullian. It was prefigured in the 18th century by Pierre Poiret, John Edwards, John William Fletcher and Isaac Watts, systematised by Darby and the PBs and popularised by the American Congregationalist Cyrus Scofield (Scofield Ref Bible), and developed further by Lewis Sperry Chafer at Dallas Theological Seminary. A 'dispensation' is "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God."(Scofield Ref Bible, 1909 reprint p5). The dispensational mainstream holds to 7 dispensations: innocency (creation to the Fall), conscience (the Fall to Noah), human government (Noah to Abraham), promise (Abraham to Moses), law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the Rapture) and the millenial kingdom in which Christ will reign from Jerusalem and in which the messianic promises to the Jews will be fulfilled. We are presently in the grace dispensation but in the millenium there will be a return to emphasis on works (eg the sacrifices to which you refer). There will be a secret rapture of the church prior to the great tribulation and the second coming. Most dispensationalists speak of two comings - the rapture and the millenium. it was Darby, under the influence of Irving and McDonald, who first set out this thought and 'codified' it.

BTW, are you in referring to Missler quoting from 'The Magog Invasion' perchance?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[stevenlynch]

no to the "Magog Invasion" briefing pack... the one I listened to and studied was "The Rapture: Christianity's Most Prepostorous Belief".

I've never heard the Magog one.

As far as the Church at Constantinople... I'll have to do more research...but considering the corruption of the church that occurred during the time of Constantine's successors ..I don't give them high confidence.

You're still hearkening back to who decided what during a time that was when the split between a more literalistic interpretation and an allegorical approach was occurring.

The Allegorist began to win earthly power for a time. The seeds of the Protestant movement didn't bear fruit for over a thousand years.

To be first...or to be MORE... does not automatically make you correct.

*******
Dispensation & Millenial views

Your quote about dispensations... I'd have to counter that Dispensationalism is more about the progressive revealing of God's plan and His Nature rather than His Will.

He sets out His Will in His Word. That..we can know.

As the events of history are played out...we see how His plan achieves His Will. That..we don't always know...but sometimes we can and do.

That's how I see Dispensation.

I don't necessarily hold to those 7 defined eras of dispensation...but its probably a good guide.

The sacrifices of the Millenial period...from what I can remember being taught are for memorial purposes..not a new era of works based salvation.

Are the sacrifices needed? Looking at it from this side of the event...I'd say no. Maybe there's more to it than what has been revealed so far...

Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

 

[Matt Black]

Steve,

As I've already said, if you reject the church of the 4th and 5th century ecumenical councils, you also reject the NT in its present form. so, I ask again, who's for a Gnostic Gospel? Whilst we're at it, let's shoehorn the Shepherd of Hermas in...oh, and the Epistle of Barnabas of which you're so fond, which incidentally, is highly anti-Semitic.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[stevenlynch]

Matt...

I don't see this as an either/or situation as you do.

If you want to get into the final form of the Gospel as it is today...which translation are you speaking of?

We could discuss codeci and validity thereof for weeks.

Don't go saying and accusing me of being Anti-Semitic either. That's pretty crappy Matt...and I was just beginning to like you.

I just bought an Israeli flag on Monday and paid for a tree in Anathoth.

Jer 32:9 And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that [was] in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, [even] seventeen shekels of silver.

I'm a Christian Zionist.

Don't ever suggest I'm Anti-semitic.


I've never read the Epistle of Barnabbas either...

You've put a tremendous amount of words into my mouth...what's your point?

 

[Matt Black]

Steve

At no point have I accused you of being anti-Semitic; I have simply endeavoured to warn you that Barnabas, whilst it may support PMDism is also anti-Semitic and that one would do well to be wary of attaching much weight to it, and I thought that as someone who is pro-Israel, you had a right to know.

I'm not sure that you can pick and choose what church Council decisions you support or not, as you purport to do. If you are saying the church got it wrong at Constantinople I in 381 by condemning chiliism, you must also accept the possibility that it got it wrong at Carthage in 397, which means open season on the NT.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If you are saying the church got it wrong at Constantinople I in 381 by condemning chiliism, you must also accept the possibility that it got it wrong at Carthage in 397, which means open season on the NT.

Actually, I do not depend on any of these councils for my understanding of what should have been canonized. The Scripture gives plenty of guidelines for canonization.

Just because you do not understand our position, does not mean you have to go and say stuff that is not true.

 

[stevenlynch]

Matt...

What is this junk about..You MUST BELIEVE THIS COUNCIL IF YOU BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL.

No... I don't.

Your attempt at linking the two with Boolean logic falters in the knowledge of the scope and purpose of the two councils.

Its sort of like saying... If I don't like the findings of the Jesus Seminar Boys...then I can't follow the tenets of First Baptist Church of the Holy Roller in Mudlick, Arkansas.

Church Councils are different at different places and times. Not all of them are Holy Spirit inspired.

Now...the Jesus Seminar Boys would probably gag at the Business meeting in Mudlick...and they would be right!

The Mudlick brothers gag at the doctrine of the Jesus Seminar...and THEY would be right!

Steve

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Gunther:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
If you are saying the church got it wrong at Constantinople I in 381 by condemning chiliism, you must also accept the possibility that it got it wrong at Carthage in 397, which means open season on the NT.

Actually, I do not depend on any of these councils for my understanding of what should have been canonized. The Scripture gives plenty of guidelines for canonization.

</font>[/QUOTE]Then what on earth do you depend upon? Your own intuition??? Answer me this - which came first, Scripture or the church?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Then what on earth do you depend upon? Your own intuition??? Answer me this - which came first, Scripture or the church?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Technically, the church was started prior to the final book being penned, but chronology does not matter here.

A thorough and concise understanding of the O.T. and the examining of all books written that are even among the list of possible N.T. books would produce the same as what we have today.

Do you not understand the canonization process? No council "confirmed" the canon. No council was EVER given that job. Please point out where the church was given the job to canonize the Scripture.

Anyway, stop trumping up ideas about what we believe. Stop bringing in historically irrelevant facts. Stop trying to steer the discussion into your logical fallacies (if you believe this... then you must also believe...). Stop peddling your anti-premillenialism.

 

[Matt Black]

Er...Gunther, I have got exactly the same rights as you to state my opinion, as much right to 'peddle' my anti-pre-millenialism as you have to 'peddle' your pro-pre-millenialism. So lets try and keep this civilised, OK?

You state I know nothing about the process of canonisation. I beg to differ. Canonisation was determined by the church, which in fact began prior to the first NT book being penned, let alone the last. The process is described in some detail by the following extract from my church's website:-

"During the early centuries of the Church, there were many documents that claimed to hold "true" Christian teaching. Due to misinterpretation of various teachings, it became important to identify which were truly canonical and "inspired", and which were not. For instance, the very first version of the "New Testament", in AD 140, was written by an anti-Semite, Marcion, who deleted all references to Jesus' Judaism. This convinced the leaders of the Church that there was a dire need to authoritatively decree which books were to be considered truly inspired.

Marcion was the first to have published a formal canon list in about 140 A.D.. It consisted of Luke and ten of Paul's letters. A number of other letters, Acts of various apostles, and other writings began to circulate at this time. Some supported various groups of the time including the Montanists, Gnostics, Docetists, and others who were later declared to be heresies. Irenaeus declared that there could only be four gospels and the Muratorian Canon was soon published which included the four Gospels, thirteen letters of Paul, two letters of John, Jude, Revelation, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Revelation of Peter (somewhat contested). The book of Hebrews was not included, although widely used and discussed even by Clement much earlier. The list of books in the canon continued to be debated throughout the third century until Eusebius published a list at the beginning of the fourth century. Books still in question included James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude. Another canon was released by consensus in 367 A.D. which names the 27 books we know today. Additional books, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, and the Letter of Barnabas were considered suitable for study but not as scripture. This last list of books was finally accepted by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D

The general rules to be included in the later canons were:

It had to be written or sponsored by an apostle.
It had to have orthodox content.
It had to be publically used by a prominent church or a majority of churches.
Some books which appeared to meet these rules were later dropped when proved to be forgeries, such as the Acts of Paul. Approximate dating of the development of the New Testament: AD 200 AD 250 AD 300 AD 400

Selection of New Testament books as canonical was slow, the present Canon appearing for the first time in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius (A.D. 367). Ironically, it was not the deuterocanonical books that were the stumbling point, initially, but apparently the NT Scripture of the Book of Hebrews. Once this agreement on Canon was reached in it's final version, all major Christian churches used the same Canon. Basically, the Canon proclaimed in AD 367 by Athanasius is the same exact version of the Bible that the Catholic Church uses today.

The New Testament canon developed over a period of time and those of the early church fathers were as follows:-

Muratorian Canon
Four Gospels, Acts, Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, James, I & II John, Jude, Revelation of John, Revelation of Peter, Wisdom of Solomin. Additionally the 'Shepherd of Hermas' was recommended for private study.
Origen's collection
Four Gospels, Acts,Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, I Peter, I John, Revelation of John.
Disputed texts were:-
Hebrews, James, II Peter, II & III John, Jude, Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve (Didache), Gospel of the Hebrews.
Eusebius's collection
Four Gospels, Acts, Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, I Peter, I John, Revelation of John.
Disputed texts were:-
Hebrews, James, II Peter, II & III John, Jude.
Purposely excluded: Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve (Didache), Gospel of the Hebrews, Revelation of Peter, Acts of Peter
Council of Carthage
Four Gospels, Acts, Pauls Letters: Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col. I & II Thess., I, & II Tim., Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I & II Peter, I, II, & III John, Revelation of John. "

What process of canonisation were you thinking of? NB this is extremely relevant, and not 'Boolian logic': if the church was able to determine the NT, it was also able to determine that pre-millenialism was heretical. The entire pre-millenial argument stands or falls or this premise, despite what you may like to think.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...Gunther, I have got exactly the same rights as you to state my opinion, as much right to 'peddle' my anti-pre-millenialism as you have to 'peddle' your pro-pre-millenialism. So lets try and keep this civilised, OK?

The end of my post was a weak attempt at humor. I thought it was funny. I will have to start incorporating those nerdy faces I suppose.

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks for clearing that up Gunther

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[stevenlynch]

Matt said:

if the church was able to determine the NT, it was also able to determine that pre-millenialism was heretical. The entire pre-millenial argument stands or falls or this premise, despite what you may like to think.

See... there you go again.

The entire pre-millenial argument stands or falls according to the WHOLE of scripture...both Old and New Testaments.

Not to some church council.

If pre-millenialism is distasteful to a few church fathers...of ANY time period...I can't help it. There's scriptural support in both testaments.

Does Pre-Mill affect my salvation? No. Does Amill affect your salvation? No.

None of our "beliefs" about the Millenial Kingdom mean squat.

God's is going to do what He said he was going to do. He's laid it out for us in advance.

Now...sometimes I have to admit I wonder if God will treat us in accordance to how we believe when it comes to the Millenial Kingdom. After all...it doesn't affect our salvation.

To those that anticipate a rapture event followed by tribulation...(of whatever duration) and a 1000 year reign of the physically returned Master of the Universe our Lord Yeshua..then that is what you'll get to see.

To those that believe they are in the Kingdom of God now and believe it will go through tribulation and culminate at the return of Christ. Then ...hey you get your wish.

The book of Revelation (chapters 2 & 3) can be interpreted to support both of these views. Matthew too.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The Father's Will be done.

The only way I can find out what his Will is...is to read the Bible as literally as possible...and when I do that... I get Pre-Mill.

Now...if you want to go by Origen...you will not achieve the same results.

So be it...

Thy Kingdom come...Thy Will be done.

Steve

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by stevenlynch:
Matt said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> if the church was able to determine the NT, it was also able to determine that pre-millenialism was heretical. The entire pre-millenial argument stands or falls or this premise, despite what you may like to think.

See... there you go again.

The entire pre-millenial argument stands or falls according to the WHOLE of scripture...both Old and New Testaments.

Not to some church council.

</font>[/QUOTE]But it was a church council that decided what the WHOLE of Scripture was. "There I go again" - because I believe it to be true!

Yours in Christ

Matt