The reign of amillenial theology

Daniel David: "This discussion is futile since Chuckles won't answer the questions, Aaron is pathetically unlearned in the various ideas, oldreg tucked tail and ran away, and Ken admits he knew nothing but was confident it isn't premill. Snicker snicker.

That was tooooooo easy. "

Amen, Brother Daniel David -- Preach it!

Sometimes i feel like i'm stealing
candy from babies. Fortunately i have multiple
Biblical ways of riding myself of guilt

 

Maybe it's just that we sometimes feel like Jesus did when he sat on the Mount of Olives and wept over their unbelief of his words!

 

I.Ihon I.9 (KJV1611):

1Jo 1:9 If we confesse our sinnes, hee is
faithfull, & iust to forgiue vs our sinnes,
and to cleanse vs from all vnrighteousnesse.

 

DD,

I will ignore your rude unChristian name calling and get to the point...Oh Please tell me where in your quotation of Ireneaus where you find a 1,000 year split theory???

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."

************************************************** </font>[/QUOTE]

 

This passage from my Sunday School lesson
blows preterism out of the water:

Luke 19:41-44 (KJV1611):

And when he was come neere, he behelde the Citie,
and wept for it,
42 Saying, O if thou haddest euen knowen at
the least in this thy day those things,
which belong vnto thy peace! but nowe
are they hid from thine eyes.
43 For the dayes shall come vpon thee,
that thine enemies shall cast a trench
about thee, and compasse thee round,
and keepe thee in on euery side,
44 And shall make thee euen with ye ground,
and thy children which are in thee,
and they shall not leaue in thee
a stone vpon a stone, because thou knewest
not that season of thy visitation.

The events of AD70 were the fullfillment
of this prophecy of Jesus.
The events of AD70 do not fulfill the
prophecies of the Mount Olivet Discourse
(MAD), Matthew 24-25, Mark 17, Luke 21.

 

OH MY WORD!!! YOU TEACH?????

 

Again, I will ignore your arrogance.

And again, in THAT quotation he CLEARLY DOES NOT LAY OUT ANY PRE-MILLENIUM CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND YOU KNOW IT!

If he intended to convey a 1,000 year millenium, I should think he would certainly done it in a chrolological sequence!

 

I think there is great danger
to critique God's Word.

Isaiah 29:16 (HCSB):

You have turned things around,
as if the potter were the same as the clay.
How can what is made say about its maker,
"He didn't make me"?
How can what is formed
say about the one who formed it,
"He doesn't understand [what he's doing]"?

 

Ed,

You seem to post just for the sake of seeing your picture pop up on the internet because you don't make sense most of the time....

I was challenging Daniel Davids referring to Iraeneus' as being pre-mil in that quote of which there is no indication whatsoever in it!

I WAS NOT QUOTING SCRIPTURE!!!!

 

Take heart Trailblazer,

It's hard to be amill around here! Most premillers here argue from their emotions, having not even read anything by amillenialists!

I wonder why, if Revelation 20 is really referring to a physical 1000 year reign, it serves no function that the New Jerusalem does not also serve! Even the martyrs are reigning with Christ in HEAVEN (Rev 22:5). If the millenium is such an integral part of eschatology why does Revelation not explain whom the saints rule, from where they rule, which nations are deceived by Satan etc?

As Richard Bauckham says, "The millenium becomes incomprehensible once we take it literally, but it is perfectly comprehensible as a symbol of the eschatological vindication of the martyrs." (Hope against Hope, Eerdman's publishing 1999).

Daniel David is right in saying Irenaeus was a chiliast. But that's about all.

 

Thank you,
I appreciate your showing up!

 

Correct about Iraneous, but Chiliasm was not what Dispensationalism is today!

I need to research it more, I think.

 

My understanding of Chiliasm is that it is the belief that Christ will return to establish a kingdom of peace on this earth for one thousand years. It arises out of the reference in Revelation 20 to a thousand-year period in which Satan is bound and the souls of martyrs reign with Christ. Chiliasm is different from the present day premillennialism because it does not teach a secret rapture or emphasize dispensations. Some of the early church fathers did hold to a form of chiliasm but it died out in the church after Augustine came to understand that the millennium is not a literal one thousand-year period, but is the era from Christ's ascension to His second coming.

That's my limited knowledge of it.

[ January 22, 2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: trailblazer ]

 

Trailblazer: "Chiliasm is different from
the present day premillennialism in that
it does not teach a secret rapture
or emphasize dispensations."

Humm, i must be a clasic Chiliast because
i teach neither a secret rapture nor
emphasize dispensations.

 

Trailblazer,

Very true. The rapture is 100% unscriptural - and unsupported by the early church fathers as well.

Irenaeus spent most of his writing efforts refuting the Valentinian gnostics, and all of his work should be interpreted against this backdrop. He cites as one of his reasons for a necessary intermediate state the fact that the soul needs preparation before going to meet God. Since Jesus first descended to the underworld so must we. He writes:

For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master.” As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven], but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege] (Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch 31, section 2).

Daniel David and others will often say such things as, "all the church fathers were premill..." This is very much a distortion. While Irenaeus was premill, most of the others seemed to make statements for and against a millenium. They were unsure just like many in the 21st century!

 

Charles,

I guess my background knowledge is limited as I pretty much always believed that you can find "threads" of just about any belief about Christ all the way back to the birth of the church. However, they were just that - threads! The overwhelming majority of church history remained solid, for the most part throughout its 2,000 years.