Primitive Baptist
New Member
Amillennialist here...why don't you all stop arguing. You're all wrong! 
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I must agree with you firmly brother. But *Panmill*...that's a new twist. Kind of catchy. OK if I use it? LOL.Originally posted by Kiffin:
I use to be dogmatic Pre Trib but the Pre Trib is a theory that often reads behind the lines. The fact is there is no scripture that teaches of
1. 7 year Tribulation
2. A Rebuilt Jerusalem Temple
The Pre Trib view was unheard of until the 1800's which cast doubt on it's credibilty. Of course all Tribulation and Millenial views are Theories. Tim Lahaye and many others have turned the Book of Revelation into a "Christian" Horror Novel that must rival Stephen King. That is a shame.
I personaly hold to a Amill view with a Postmill edgebut would basically call my self a Panmill (It will all pan out in the end). It should be noted that even Amills and Postmills in the past at times have turned Revelation into a "Christian" Horror" book in the same way Lahaye has done. I think however Posttrib is what the Bible teaches though I am not dogmatic on my Millenial views. Let's remember that the Jews had a completely wrong understanding of the 1st Coming of Christ and it would not suprise me if we are all off on the Second coming. As a seminary professer told me in class once, there are 3 things we know for sure about the Second Coming of Christ.![]()
1. Christ is Coming again
2. We Don't know when
3. Be Ready
Too often today people are focusing on the coming of AntiChrist, computer chips as a Mark of the Beast, etc... that we miss the basic message.
1655 Midland Baptist Confession
I don't think that non-pretrib premills are saying that Christ isn't coming again. Where do you get that idea from?Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hrhema:
Peter said in the Last days scoffers would arise who would say that we have heard about his coming for ages and where is it.
I didn't know he wasn't a Baptist. What is he?The reason two of you are attacking LaHaye is because he is not Baptist. He did not write the book to protect the Left Behind Series.
I would rather stand with Scriptural truth than any majority on any subject.As far as people flocking to another theory is not what the latest polls in many magazines have shown.
As someone with an interest in history, is that available on the Internet somewhere?As far as some guy coming to the church when the Apostle John was there I have news for you. Athansius is the Father of the Doctrine of the Trinity. He is the one who brought this doctrine to the forefront at the Council of Nicea and Trent where the majority of Christianity bases their beliefs.
Hallelujah!! Amen brotherOriginally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Amillennialist here...why don't you all stop arguing. You're all wrong!![]()
I am also an amillennialist of the philosophy of history method of interpretation of the book of Revelation. My favorite commentary on Revelation is More Than Conquerors by William Hendriksen.Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Amillennialist here...why don't you all stop arguing. You're all wrong!![]()
Athanasius and Polycarp were nearly 2 centuries apart. (Polycarp's disciple was named Polycrates. Believe it or not, Athanasius was heavily influenced by Origen, if not a student of his)Athansius is the Father of the Doctrine of the Trinity. He is the one who brought this doctrine to the forefront at the Council of Nicea and Trent where the majority of Christianity bases their beliefs. He was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John.
You've got it a little backwardsOriginally posted by PreachtheWord:
[QB]Really guys, to dismiss pretrib because you don't see it or understand it or any of the above reasons is pitiful. I have never seen a valid argument against pretrib - premill.
Hmmm...if you would listen to the two sermons that I listed at the beginning of this thread, I think you would hear plenty of Scriptural proof that the pretrib premill position cannot stand in the light of Scripture.Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Really guys, to dismiss pretrib because you don't see it or understand it or any of the above reasons is pitiful. I have never seen a valid argument against pretrib - premill. Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you could offer one? Huh, anyone...?
I couldn't help but notice the lack of Scripture to prove either amill or postmill or attack the premill position. Perhaps we will see some of that???
No need to sigh.Originally posted by EagleLives911:
(sigh) Again, I post:
It is? Mine is the *fact* of the appearing of Christ, not the *timing* of the appearing of Christ. Are you saying that if pretrib is actually wrong, you have no "Blessed Hope"?
It is Blessed Hope!
There are several passages that assume a pretrib rapture. In fact, without a pretrib rapture, these passages make no sense. To say that there is no single -- not one -- Scripture verse that teaches this is a great overstatement.Originally posted by Chris Temple:
There is not a single - not one - Scripture verse which teaches a pretrib rapture. Nada. Zilch. As one who believes an inferential doctrine as opposed to the one-time Second Coming of Christ on the last day (Matt 10:15; John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:24) it is your position which must prove its case.
This too is an unfortunate overstatement. What you should say is that the time period of the millennium is taught only in Rev 20. The fact of an earthly reign of the Messiah King over his people is testified to more times than can be listed in this forum. We are premillennialists, not becasue of Rev 20, but because of the promises of God who cannot lie. We are premillennialists because we value the OT as inspired prophecy.As for premill, the entire doctrine is based upon Rev 20, and a millennium is mentioned nowhere else - no where - in Scripture.
If there is one thing that pretrib premills are known for it is their myriad of charts.Originally posted by EagleLives911:
(sigh) Again, I post:
Here is the one section of the Larkin chart if you care to look:
Is there a place on the Internet where I can see this exegetical defense?Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Additionally, our position has been shown to be exegetically sound numerous times.
Can you list a few? I don't believe in pretrib, and I don't know of any passages that don't make sense to me.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
In fact, without a pretrib rapture, these passages make no sense.
This too is an unfortunate overstatement. What you should say is that the time period of the millennium is taught only in Rev 20. The fact of an earthly reign of the Messiah King over his people is testified to more times than can be listed in this forum.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As for premill, the entire doctrine is based upon Rev 20, and a millennium is mentioned nowhere else - no where - in Scripture.
You know I am starting to wonder if there is such a thing as an exegetical defense of pretrib premillennialism. It appears it is a matter of some men a 75-175 years ago coming up with charts and theories, some big names in Christendom publishing books in the 1960's and 1970's, the readers of these books working each other up into a doctrinal lather, and then creating a mass following among people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag in defending their position.Originally posted by BrianT:
For others: still waiting for those quotes....![]()
The link:When it comes to any discussion about when and how the next Holy Temple—the long-anticipated Third Temple—will be rebuilt, there are many important questions that need to be raised. For example: How will the Third Temple be built? Where must it be built, and why? Can it be built somewhere else, temporarily? How could it possibly come about in the face of present-day political realities? Who will actually build it? Don’t some people believe that it will descend from heaven, ready made? Will it be different from its predecessors, and in what way? Is this Third Temple that we are speaking about, the one in Ezekial’s vision? Will this temple be built by the messiah, or should it be completed before he arrives? These are just some of the questions that need to be clarified.
"...in our time."The Temple Institute (in Hebrew, Machon HaMikdash), founded in 1987, is a non-profit educational and religious organization located in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. We are dedicated to every aspect of the Biblical commandment to build the Holy Temple of G-d on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. Our short-term goal is to rekindle the flame of the Holy Temple in the hearts of mankind. Our long-term goal is to do as much as possible to bring about the building of the Holy Temple in our time. Thus, the Institute’s efforts include raising public awareness about the Holy Temple, and the central role that it occupies in the spiritual life of mankind. The many areas of activities conducted by the Institute combine research, publications, and conferences, as well as the production of educational materials.
Well, Bro I usually agree with your political views but on this I have to part company.It was earlier in this thread stated thus: The fact is there is no scripture that teaches of... A Rebuilt Jerusalem Temple.
Well, according to the Jews, they believe there IS to be a rebuilt temple according to Scripture! (Of course, they base their beliefs on the OT prophecies.)