The reign of amillenial theology

[OldRegular]

The premillennial doctrine of the early Church was not pre-trib nor dispensational. There is a world of difference between the teachings of Darby/Scofield/Walvoord/Ryrie/Ironside and the teaching of the churches of the first 1800 years AD. That teaching was that God had only one people and that the Church was one with the "faithful remnant", Spiritual Israel of the Old Testament.

People should understand that there is more error in Darbyism than its eschatology.

 

[Daniel David]

The timing of rapture was NEVER discussed by the fathers. How could you make the statement that they weren't pretrib?

Is that another of your arguments from silence? Give me a break.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
The timing of rapture was NEVER discussed by the fathers. How could you make the statement that they weren't pretrib?

If was NEVER discussed, then how can you make the statement that they weren't post-trib?

Are you attempting to make an argument based on silence?

 

[APuritanMindset]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Catholics are wrong about:

1. All five of the Solas
2. The doctrine of Christ
3. The doctrine of the church including ordinances and polity

Yet some 'baptists' believe they are right about eschatology. Classic.

But aren't you claiming to be right just as others here are?

 

[Daniel David]

Ken, while the timing of the rapture was not specifically mentioned, they did believe the return of Christ was imminent. That means he could come at any moment. Such a view is not very suitable for posttrib.

As I have said, they might not have been full-blown Darbyists (as Oldreg has said), but they were still pretrib, premill.

APM, of course I am claiming to be right. Why would anyone want to believe a lie?

I am pointing out the origin and reign of amill theology. Please note that the reign ended once the reformation began.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Ken, while the timing of the rapture was not specifically mentioned, they did believe the return of Christ was imminent.

Which, of course, plays right into the hands of the preterists.

Also, I don't accept the whole premillennial claim to an outpouring of God's wrath after Christians leave this physical earth. And you have yet show any proof that a majority of early Christians believed in such.

 

[OldRegular]

APuritanMindset

Two great posts on Page 1.

 

[OldRegular]

The Roman Catholic Church is being dragged across the pages of this forum as a "red herring". A study of Church History will show that there have always been dissenters from the Church of Rome. Also most of the Reformers were either postmillennial or amillennial. It was not until the advent of Darby and the subsequent publication of the Scofield Bible that Darbyism with its pre-trib "rapture" of the Church became prominent among evangelicals.

In truth there is not one passage of Scripture that supports a pre-trib removal of the Church. Furthermore, there is only one passage of Scripture [Revelation 20:1-7] that is misconstrued to mean an earthly millennial reign of Jesus Christ.

 

[KenH]

The premillennialists build their whole eschatology around a very few verses just as the Church of Christ denomination builds it idea about baptism around a very few verses.

 

[Daniel David]

Oldreg, while there have always been true believers throughout the time since Christ, we lack almost all of their writings. When people say that amill theology has dominated church history, it really is only during that dark ages that such a claim can be made. Funny huh? Amill reigns during the dark ages. And you actually still believe it. Snicker snicker.

Ken, no one can dispute the opening post. It is historical fact that even Gerstner would agree with.

As for building a whole doctrine around a few verses, you only demonstrate your lack of an understanding on the key issues (this would account for your past postmillenial views and your present entertaining of preterism).

Preterism embraces imminence, but denies the bodily return of Christ. Amills believe in imminence, but deny the full extent of Christ's kingdom. Posttribs just deny imminence altogether.

If the early church believed in imminence, and it did, and it believed in a bodily return of Christ to rule for a thousand years, you are severely limited in the kinds of eschatologies that are supported by the earliest possible commentaries. This has been my point.

Premillenialism believes that the testimony of Scripture is that the kingdom of the Christ will be upon the earth. This does not rule out a spiritual aspect (which existed during the O.T. as well). This just means that part of his kingdom is obviously still future.

Revelation 20 only speaks to the DURATION of the kingdom. That he has a kingdom is not subject to debate. Those who strive with an earthly kingdom do not object on the basis of Scripture.

Someone show me just one text that either hints at amill or disproves that Christ will reign upon the earth. Come on folks, just one. In two pages, no one has been able to do either.

 

[KenH]

Jesus reigns now. He is not waiting to reign in His kingdom. He reigns now. And His people are in His kingdom now - Colossians 1:13.

Sorry, DD, but I am not going to buy into your materialistic fantasy.

 

[Daniel David]

Believing that he is reigning now (which I do), does not negate that he will bring his kingdom down to the earth and rule from here, just like the Scripture says.

Again, please give me just one text that proves amill or negates premill. All I ask for is one.

 

[KenH]

Give me one text that proves premill. Something that cannot be misinterpreted because it is in symbolic language as Revelation 20:1-6 is.

Sorry, DD, but you ain't gonna get no materialistic kingdom - not now, not ever. Your desire for a carnal kingdom will never, ever be met.

 

[Daniel David]

Ken, Revelation 20 doesn't prove premillenialism, it only gives the duration of the kingdom.

Thank you for pointing out that you are a gnostic with your spiritual=not of this earth while evil/materialistic/carnal=after this earth.

The body and resurrection of Christ smacks your theology around Ken. Christ's body and resurrection were both spiritual and earthly/physical. Our resurrection will be wholistic. That is, all of our being will be resurrected into one body. Our immaterial and material aspects of who we are will be united in perfection.

This is the same as the kingdom. Note that in Romans 8 Paul looks forward to not only our glorification, but states that creation is awaiting its glorification. This is a day coming Ken. You get it? THE CREATION AWAITS ITS RESTORATION. That means an earthly restoration.

There is so much more to eschatology than the end of all things. Christ's kingdom is here in the present, but will also have an aspect that will complete God's wholistic pattern.

This is what John envisioned. Christ will return with his kingdom and establish it upon the earth. Remember the prophecy of Daniel in chapter 2? The stone that was cut off without hands (the cross) then shatters the kingdoms of the earth and replaces them? Christ will bring his kingdom to the earth through a cataclysmic event.

Sorry Ken, I have no desire for materialism. However, all of creation has awaited the restoration since Adam took the fruit.

Consider Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Note that Christ, with the kingdom already present, looks forward to a day (in the regeneration he says), when he will sit on his throne and the apostles will also sit on thrones as rulers.

When did the regeneration take place Ken? Paul was still looking for it when he wrote Romans. Creation is still decaying.

Back off Ken, this is a discussion you are obviously in over your head on.

 

[KenH]

I will not back off, DD, as the weight of Scripture is against you.

A renewed creation does not mean there is a literal, materialistic kingdom limited to 1000 literal years after which it all breaks down and evil runs rampant again after peace has reigned for a literal 1000 years.

You assume way, way too much and are clearly reading your presuppositions into the Biblical text.

 

[Daniel David]

What weight of Scripture? This was the expectation since Adam. It carried through all the O.T. Christ and Paul both spoke of the regeneration of a future event. Christ said that he WOULD reign (note that he was reigning THEN) on his throne once the regeneration came.

You are so inept at dealing with any of the points I have brought up.

You haven't disproving ANYTHING I have said, historically or theologically. I can post text after text and you have done NOTHING that disproves any of what I have said. You are just rambling about issues that have nothing to do with what is being talked about.

Is Christ presently reigning? Yes.

There, you can scratch that off your list of reasons why premill is wrong, since I as a premill believe that.

Next.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Is Christ presently reigning? Yes.

Then there is nothing left to wait for in the matter of His kingdom. Since He is reigning, he can't reign any more than He already is, unless you wish to claim that there is something lacking in His current reign.

Also, you have not offered one iota of proof that the early church predominately believed as you do. All you have given are your own personal statements.

Sorry, DD, but that ain't gonna cut it.

But I do thank you, DD. This thread has enabled me to lump historical premillennialism in with dispensational premillennialism. Therefore, I can now write off all premillennial eschatology as having no Scriptural basis. That will save me time in studying eschatology as I can pursue the other eschatologies without wasting time on premillennialism.

 

[Daniel David]

Ken, he was reigning when he said what is contained in Matthew 19:28 as well. You have still yet to give just one text or even an idea as to why what I am saying is wrong. You can't argue with the historical facts either.

You don't believe in premillenialism because you lack the understanding of the wholistic nature of eschatology. Your unbelief is sin Ken.

Just like in politics, you get thrown around by whatever way the wind blows.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
You can't argue with the historical facts either.

You haven't given any historical facts. All we have is your statement as to what you think they are. Where is your proof? The fact that you have yet to present any proof speaks volumes about your unsubstantiated position and is devestating to your idea.

So, either ante up or give up your argument, DD.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Your unbelief is sin Ken.

Wow! If I don't believe in "Daniel David's" eschatology, then I am sinning.

Sorry, DD, but you ain't God, regardless of what you believe on eschatology.