The reign of amillenial theology

[DHK]

DavidF
And had you attended all the great Catholic seminaries of the nation they all with one accord would have taught you that Peter was the first Pope.
Your opinion on church history only reveals what seminaries and schools you have been taught by. It also reveals that contrary to what you have asserted you have not read ALL church authorities in history.
Daniel David has put forth a credible point of view, and it should not be "put down" just for the sake of someone else's "higher" or more "liberal" education.
DHK

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by rjprince:
DFW3,

Not impressed by an M.Div. or even a PHD or THD. Would be impressed if you dealt with the issue in any kind of a substantial manner.

With your pedigree (Furman, Duke) I am not suprised at your position, nor that you have not been exposed to premillennial church history. Do they even use the Bible at Duke now? Pretty sure that Furman discarded the idea that Scripture was any kind of authority several years back.

I suppose you hold to Graf-Welhaussen and the documentary source theory as opposed to God-breathed inspiration? Would like an answer to that one.

How about the crossing of the Red Sea? Is the Biblical account to be taken literally, or do we rationalize it away as a result of centuries of "oral tradition" gone awry?

A bit surprised that Southern would grant an M.Div. when 3/4 of the work was done elsewhere, particularly at Duke! Thought that the liberals were mostly gone.

Your degrees do not impress me. If you were to deal with the issues in a substantial way, that would be a little more impressive.

You have only demonstrated your inability to understand what you read. But for the record, and based upon the experience of some one who was actually there, obviously NOT YOU:

At Furman, every course in Biblical Studies used and required one text book, The Bible.

At Duke, every course in biblical studies required one text book, the Bible.

I do not apologise for being educated my friend, and I do not respect your words in the least. I simply stand by my post and state categorically that Daniel David is an ignorant man about these things and every reputable scholar in the field will support my position. Rejoice in your ignorance if you desire. I enjoy the light of knowledge, and will share it with all wise enough to accept it, and leave it to God to deal with those who reject it, and in the process act like fools.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by DHK:
DavidF
And had you attended all the great Catholic seminaries of the nation they all with one accord would have taught you that Peter was the first Pope.
Your opinion on church history only reveals what seminaries and schools you have been taught by. It also reveals that contrary to what you have asserted you have not read ALL church authorities in history.
Daniel David has put forth a credible point of view, and it should not be "put down" just for the sake of someone else's "higher" or more "liberal" education.
DHK

An insult to the great institutions of higher learning is not a credible argument. Church History is Church History, and schools like Duke and Furman are simply committed to making sure their students get a comprehensive and accurate education so careless mouthed people like Daniel David can be properly corrected when they reveal their ignorance. If all you can do is label people, call them names like "liberal", and if by that you mean, feeling inadequate because you never got the opportunity to learn a few things, and all you can do at this point is hurl insults at people who did, save your coments for someone who cares. Daniel David is WRONG. Historically WRONG. Goodness gracious, just get a good comprehensive study of Church History and read the thing.

 

[rjprince]

DFW3, Sir,

Do not assume that my comments come from a lack of information, that is the essence of ignorance. Nor should you assume that my disdain for the moderate theology of both Furman and Duke is an indication that I hold their intellectual prowess in a similar disdain. On the contrary, their intellectualism is widely attested. What is also widely attested is the moderate position of their theology.

I quote from the DDS Information Overview on THEIR website: “One of 13 seminaries founded and supported by the United Methodist Church, the school has from its beginnings been ecumenical in aspiration, teaching, and practice. With many diverse theological perspectives, students find common ground through immersion in Scripture and the church’s tradition for addressing the challenges of faith in today’s world.”

I did not seriously suggest that Duke did not use the Bible, the intent was that they do not use the Bible seriously. It is viewed as being nearly, if not only, of an equal authority as church history and church tradition, hence the “AND” in their quote. I have some familiarity with UMC position on the authority of Scripture, it is not in line with conservative Baptist thought by any stretch of the imagination.

In Dean Jones’ message under the mission statement of DDS he states, “Additionally, the school is a major ecumenical center by virtue of its Wesleyan tradition and its commitment to the catholicity of the church.” Does major ecumenical center sound “conservative” or “moderate” to you?

How about women in ministry? Couples in ministry? Husband and wife co-pastor teams? Check out the story on the Goehrings in the Winter 04 “Divinity” of DDS.

Again, I do not have disdain for higher education. My son is a student at Vanderbilt. My wife is a college professor. I have both undergrad and grad degrees. My point was that I would not have expected Duke Divinity School to have reflected a conservative view of church history when they do not hold to a conservative view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Go to faculty and staff notes in just a few of the issues of Divinity and take a look at the kind of books the faculty are writing. Take a look at the conferences and seminars they are presenting.

I qualify for MENSA (and I am sure that others here probably do as well), but you do not need a MENSA card to figure this one out! DUKE is THEOLOGICALLY LIBERAL BY CONSERVATIVE STANDARDS. WHY DID SO MANY MODERATES FLOCK TO DDS AFTER THE PURGING IN THE SBC?

Furman? The presence of the Bible in class there is no more consolation than its presence at Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. IT IS NOT SEEN AS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN ANY OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS!!! That is the reason for my lack of respect, not that I disregard higher education, I do not. Let’s just keep in mind the perspective from which you were taught church history.

Want a little insight into Furman’s liberalism, read President David Shi’s glowing remarks about Margaret Sanger! The article is titled “Reproductive Rights Advocate Blazed Trail” and is available on the Furman website.

So, maybe the question is not whether or not they used the Bible. Maybe the real question we should address is WHY did they bother?

 

[rjprince]

Forgot to mention my daughter! She is in her final semester of Nursing and will (Deo volente) recieve her B.S.N. in a few months. Oh, she is currently looking at Vandy and Emory for her M.S.N. However, I would not be any more impressed with the theology of those institutions than I was with Furman or Duke.

Ignorant? Hardly.

 

[Daniel David]

David, I want to thank you for your kind words. Whenever someone trained in such worthless places as Duke and Furman call me ignorant, I can only think of how true that must make what I believe.

This thread has gone on for 9 pages without:

1. any rebuttal to my opening post
2. any scripture that denounces premill and/or supports amill theology

Oldreg tried, but he failed so bad he hasn't been back. Brother Ken tried, but after a few miserable attempts at Rev 20, he admitted he doesn't really know.

Now, do you really want to keep this up? The more this goes on, the more the amills get embarrassed. Frankly, I don't care. I just always enjoy a good beat down on amill theology.

 

[Daniel David]

Btw, the opening post is not something I made up. It is fact that even amill theologians would concede to, as I have already said.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Daniel David: "This thread has gone on for 9 pages without:

1. any rebuttal to my opening post
2. any scripture that denounces premill and/or supports amill theology"

You were expecting it?
We've never seen it before.
Why did you expect it now?
Did something happen different?

 

[Aaron]

Haven't read the whole thread, and won't, but I'm in the mood to chew on something other than music for awhile.

When one describes himself as either Amill or Premil, he is saying much more than merely what he believes about Rev. 20; he is speaking of what he believes about the Kingdom of Heaven/God and how one enters therein.

Before I bite I want to know what brand of Premillennialism DD subscribes to. I also need to say that St. Paul preceded Origen as a "pimp of the allegorical method." (1 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 4:24) And, in fact, the genre of literature that is the book of Revelation strengthens rather than weakens this approach when viewing chapter 20. After all your verbage, DD, about church history and the supposed context of the development of Amillennialism, don't you think it significant that the only passage that mentions a 1000-year reign is in a book the main characteristic of which is symbolism?

[ January 12, 2005, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[rjprince]

Aaron,

Let me jump in. "Genre" - your use of the word is interesting. I would take it as an indication of amil leanings, or at least leanings toward amil methodology. Rev is not the only book that mentions a literal theocratic kingdom! It is all through the Bible, OT and New! Rev is the only one that gives the duration as 1,000 years. I suppose you would argue that the numbers 1260, 12,000, 7, 12, 24 are all symbolic as well? I mean, since they occur in a book "the main character of which is symbolism"?

What about the "white horse", "white hair", "white robes"? That all nothing but non-literal symbolism as well?

Oh well, I jumped in. I'll just jump back out for the moment.


DD,

The new breed of amil theologians do not seem to universally acknowledge the chilasm of the early church. If you have access to it, BibSac has a series of 9 articles by Arnold Ehlert that give an extensive bibliography of early premillennial and dispensational citations. If I recall correctly, you are not dispy, but there is some material that you may find of interest as it gives strong support to early views on the theocratic kingdom. The articles run from 1944-46. If you want it, but can't find it, let me know with a PM.

 

[Charles Meadows]

The new breed of amil theologians do not seem to universally acknowledge the chilasm of the early church. If you

Now you're talkin! How many times have I posted this?

Anyway...

If they were NOT millenarian then what were they??

 

[Daniel David]

Aaron, none of Scripture is allegory. None of it. There isn't a single instance in all the Scripture of allegory.

My 'brand' of premillenialism is rooted firmly in the Scripture and the writings of John's disciples and in turn, their disciples, ie Irenaeus (my new favorite dead theologian).

While I believe in the pretrib rapture, my distinctions between Israel and the Church are fuzzing together into the New Covenant people of God. I still claim the name dispensationalist, I just reject its classical and progressive forms.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
David, I want to thank you for your kind words. Whenever someone trained in such worthless places as Duke and Furman call me ignorant, I can only think of how true that must make what I believe.

This thread has gone on for 9 pages without:

1. any rebuttal to my opening post
2. any scripture that denounces premill and/or supports amill theology

Oldreg tried, but he failed so bad he hasn't been back. Brother Ken tried, but after a few miserable attempts at Rev 20, he admitted he doesn't really know.

You obviously didn't read my post, then...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Aaron, none of Scripture is allegory. None of it. There isn't a single instance in all the Scripture of allegory.

This is priceless!!!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rjprince]

Ga 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (AV)

Ga 4:24 This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. (NAS)

Ga 4:24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. (ASV)

Ga 4:24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. (NIV)

Greek word is only used here in the whole of the NT, but it is used here, allhgorew (h=eta, w=omega).

I certainly do not agree that most of the OT promises to Israel can be allegorized away, but there is at least one thing in Scripture that Paul calls an "allegory". My objection to the allegorical method is that it seeks to harmonize Scripture with a theological base, not with Scripture itself. Scripture must be understood on the basis of other Scripture in a manner that harmonizes all of the passages.

 

[rjprince]

Chas,

The earliest ECFs WERE millennarian/chilaists! I just noted that many of the newer CTs do not acknowledge it! Gentry, DeMar, Gerstner, Sproul, et al read the ECFs with shaded glasses. To be sure, their millennarianism is not very highly developed, hey, they were still working on their Christology, but there are numerous indications of premillennialism. The fact that Gerstner, Sproul, et al fail to acknowledge it does not mean it was not so!

I did not concede an absence of premillennial support, only that some, but not all, more recent CTs fail to acknowledge such millennarian evidences!

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by rjprince:
Scripture must be understood on the basis of other Scripture in a manner that harmonizes all of the passages.

That cannot be done as there are too many contradictions. Scripture must be understood on the basis that it points us towards Jesus Christ and must be interpreted in the light of His Incarnation

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rjprince]

Matt

I maintain that there are no contradictions that cannot be harmonized by comparing Scripture with Scripture. While I would not consider myself a theologian or a scholar, but I have been a diligent student of the Word for almost 35 years. I was studying things like eternal security, inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the second coming, et al, at 13-14 years of age! At this point, 2/3 of my life has been spent studying and teaching the word of God. I was teaching childrens church at 16.

There are certainly some difficulties in the Word of God, but it is not necessary to resolve them all perfectly, only to provide a reasonable means of resolution. It may not satisfy all, some will never be satisfied, but it is nonetheless satisfactory.

You want to start a thread on apparent contradictions in Scripture? I will do my best to respond. I am sure others will help as well. I do not suggest that I can fully satisfy everyone with my answers, only that a reasonable explanation exists to demonstrate the full credibility of the Word of God.

 

[Charles Meadows]

RJ,

I did not concede an absence of premillennial support, only that some, but not all, more recent CTs fail to acknowledge such millennarian evidences!

I don't deny that some were clearly chiliastic (Irenaeus, Papias). The point that I make is that while many of the early fathers did say some things that seem to support a millenium they also said things that seem to indicate a belief that a soul simply goes right to heaven at death. Thus they really didn't seem to have their theology 100% together in all areas. In my mind, to enlist "the fathers" as all premill is a little presumptious. It really isn't that simple.

 

[rjprince]

Chas,

What? I am premil and fully believe that a soul goes to heaven immediately at death (since the cross, that is). Premil and "absent from the body, present with the Lord" are not in any way out of harmony!

Further, after 20+ years of full time ministry and with the benefit of 20 centuries of Christian thought and writing, I still do not have my theo 100% together. I am aware of no premill/disp theologian who would argue that the theo of the ECFs was fully or even well developed! Semper reformanda – always reforming, to better CONFORM to the Word.