The reign of amillenial theology

Nice job Aaron!

As for DD...

The regeneration is an event that Christ specifically mentioned and tied a specific reward to because they followed him. I will ask again. When did this specific event take place?

The regeneration here will be heaven. You have to see this verse in appropriate scriptural context. Compare to Daniel 7, Luke 22:29-30, Rev 3:21. What has occurred in Daniel 7? The Son of Man takes His throne after completeing His work (prophecy fulfilled). The disciples, and all believers will be vindicated in heaven when the evildoers are judged.

Matthew really doesn't develop his eschatology a lot. He definitely doesn't see a two-tiered scheme with a millenium and then a heaven. He describes heaven in very messianic terms.

 

Why, thank you!

 

How tragic that anyone actually believes this stuff. You know what I think? I think you haven't actually studied this out. In fact, I wouldn't doubt if you never considered this verse prior to this discussion. You seem to be on the retreat the entire time here. Stop running backward Charles.

DD, you are truly one of a kind.

I have explained several times what my position on that verse is. It is cogent and supported by the views of many commentators (Davies, Allison, Metzger, Beale, Fitzmyer etc). Feel free to bash my position as much as you want. I am not bothered.

I understand quite well the premill scheme. I respect those who hold it. But when viewed in the wider context of scripture and salient nonbiblical writings I find it to be suboptimal.

You seem to be fairly knowledgeable about your own position, but I think you have studied little else.

TTFN

 

Daniel David,

How on earth could you possible get a Pre-mil theory out of this quotation of Ireneaus?? He says just the opposite! If anything he supports the Amil position!

Also,the dictionary defines "ECONOMIES" as "the proper distribution of things in a proper and orderly manner." Ireneaus does not use the word dispensations, nor does he outline anything like the kind of "dispensations" that pre-mil theology pieces together.

Now, if you look closer at the sequence of events Ireneaus DOES put forth, you must conclude that he is Amil....

To repeat your own words: "Again, there is a point where contention is a mask of unbelief." (GOOD POINT!)

So, here we have A NICE OREDERLY MANNER OF AMILLENNIALIST DOCTRINE;
1- Proclamation of the future coming by the prophets.
2- The birth of the Savior.
3- The crucifixion of Christ.
4- The resurrection of Christ.
5- The ascension into heaven.
6- The Second Coming of Christ to restore ALL THINGS to a state of cleanliness as was prior to the fall of Adam and Eve.
7- The resurrection of the WHOLE human race - the saved and the unsaved.
8- The unsaved go to eternal condemnation.
9- The saved go into heaven for eternity.

So, to slightly rephrase your words...."So there you go DISPIES, we can point to an Amillenium hundreds of years prior to your precious Augustine. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha."

**************************************************

 

It seems wierd to me to skip the
Millinnial Kingdom of Christ
because Brother Ireneaus failed
to mention it. He didn't say there wasn't
one, he just didn't mention it.

Luke 1:32 (KJV1611):

He shall be great, and shall be called
the sonne of the Highest, and
the Lord God shall giue vnto him
the throne of his father Dauid.

I believe that a literal/physical Jesus
will sit on a literal/physical throne
of a literal/physical Dauid in a literal/physcial
Jerusalem. It hasen't happened yet,
it will happen in a future Millinnial
Kingdom of Christ.

 

Now, yu'd think he'd mention it in a dissertation on an orderly progression of events if it was a part of his thought process, wouldn't ya???

That the best you guys can do with "indisputable evidence?" Pardon me, but I have yet to be impressed with the intellectual and scriptural honesty of dispensationalists.

 

Trailblazer: "Now, yu'd think he'd mention it in
a dissertation on an orderly progression of events
if it was a part of his thought process, wouldn't ya???"

Yes, i think he would have.
But the Bible doesn't include the writings
of Ireneaus. Maybe it was because of the omission
by Ireneaus of key time elements?

 

Uhhh....I think I'll wait to see if Daniel David fesses up to erroneously using the referrence.

Now, yu'd think that someone who is trying to prove a point about what someone in history said, he'd pull out, at least, something that resembled the point he was trying to make if there was one to pull out now, wouldn't ya????

Ps, Ed, how ya doin' on Luke 17???? Grasping the truth about what Christ said about the resurrection of the saved and the unsaved occurring upon his return ON THE SAME DAY?

 

I know of no one who maintains such a narrow definition of allegory. Nonetheless, you can now see how allegory is a legitimate approach to the Scriptures.

God at sundry times and in "diverse manners" spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Though the events in the Old Testament really did happen, their application under the New Covenant is spiritual, not carnal. So Paul illuminates for us in Galatians 4, the truth God is communicating to the Church through the narrative of Isaac and Ishmael and Sarah and Hagar.

We can see that Sarah and Hagar represent the New and Old Covenants respectively. Isaac represents the Church, the Jerusalem that is above, and Ishmael represents Judaism, the earthly Jerusalem.

Therefore, the promises are unto the children who are children by faith, and the fulfillment is spiritual and eternal, not earthly and temporal.

The Twelve Apostles are indeed ruling the Israel of God. Is not the Church built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone? How often to you go to the writings of Peter or Matthew or John or Paul to establish the authority of a doctrine? I did that to show you that you are already seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Paul said so in Eph. 2. He uses the past tense. We are there, it's simply that what is faith has not yet been made sight.

More to say that contradicts your premill. position merely from the tiny little portion of Scripture that you had to concede was allegorical, but I'm at work right now and I've just been summoned to fix something.

More later.

 

Trailblazer: "Ps, Ed, how ya doin' on Luke 17???? Grasping the truth
about what Christ said about the resurrection of the
saved and the unsaved occurring upon his return ON THE SAME DAY?"

I've know this truth for two months short of 53 years now.
I just believe that the SAME DAY is the 70th WEEK of Daniel
is a 7-year period. (Not to be confused with DAY of the Lord
in 2 Peter 3:10 which is the Millinnial [1,000 years] Kingdom
of Christ DAY.)

Now i have to go perform a work DAY.
I sure hope it isn't a 24-hour day like every other
day some people want to make things.

 

Gee Ed, I had such high hopes for ya there for a minute!

Seriously though, Christ was talking about "the same day" as being only ONE day. Otherwise, he would not have said that there would be two in ONE bed or that two women would be grinding TOGETHER! Believe Christ!! He would have referred to Daniel if that was what he wanted you to believe, but instead, he pointed you to 2 other examples in the OT for you to be looking at - the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah! Both events encompassed the salvation of the saints and the destruction of the wicked - ON THE SAME DAY! That should be your foundation. His words were LITERAL!

 

Trailblazer; Iwill concede to you that S/G was destroyed in one day but I will not give you the Flood. The first day it rained could not have killed the entire planet. It took about 40 DAYS and 40 NIGHTS.
So your eisegesis breaks down here.

In HIS service;
jim

 

No, it doesn't break down at all Jim. It was Christ's words that said concerning the status of society as a whole when he said that salvation and destruction came "ON THE SAME DAY."

(Note: vs 6-17 of Gen 7 is condensed but still retains the original thought...."and the windows of the heavens were opened...ON THE VERY SAME DAY Noah, [his family and the animals]went into the ark as God had commanded him; and the Lord shut him in.
...ON THAT DAY all the heavens of the great deep burst forth,...and the flood came and destroyed them all."

So, here you have God foretelling "the believers" what he is going to do beforehand. Then you have the animals and the believers going into the ark of safety. Next you have the rains coming as a sign of judgment and destroying them all...ON THE SAME DAY.

This parallels Luke 17 to a "T" without question. Did the flood last 40 days? Yes, of course. But safety for the believers occured when "the Lord shut them in" and it was on that very same day that the "rains of judgment and destruction" occurred.

That is exactly what Jesus is saying in Luke 17 when he says essentially, "Go back and look at those two examples - on the last day at the end of time the salvation of the believers and the destruction of the wicked will happen in the same manner only with fire the next time. And that is why he next provided the "mini-picture" of Sodom and Gomorrah!

 

Perhaps you're not stating your position clearly. In Matt. 19:28, who will make up the 12 tribes? Those who trace their biological genealogies through Jacob's sons to Abraham, or those of all nations of the world who are children of Abraham by faith?

Will the twelve thrones be physical with a geographical location that can be pinpointed with a GPS, or are they allegorical?

 

Seems interest in this thread is dying out, so I'll conclude my remarks. Premillennialism rests on the premise that there are OT prophecies yet unfulfilled, that Christ's Kingdom has NOT come, and that natural, political Israel still has a standing and future.

Christ stated that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He also stated that the law and the prophets are fulfilled in us who fulfill the Golden Rule.

Christ preached that His Kingdom was at hand, and said some who were living then would not die till they saw His Kingdom come, Matt. 16: 28. (This verse by the way is the death blow to Premillennialism. How did DD put it? Ah yes, "The fact of the matter is that [Premillennialists] avoid this text like the plague because it smacks [their] eschatology around so much. It totally obliterates [premill] theology to the point it isn't even recognized.) Now, unless we believe Christ was mistaken, or as the Mormons believe that St. John is still alive walking around in disguise, we have no option but to accept the fact that His Kingdom did come, and that it is eternal.

The Church is Israel. Not just "spiritual Israel," but all Israel, and all Israel will be saved. In Galatians, Paul taught us that the true heirs of Abraham are those who are children by faith, not nature, that the historical narrative of Ishmael and Isaac is to be interpreted allegorically, that natural Israel is represented by Ishmael and that the Church is represented by Isaac. What saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

So we can see, that the premises upon which Premillennialism depends for its viability are invalid, and is itself invalid. It cannot be true, and must therefore be, as DD is quick to point out, sin.