The reign of amillenial theology

[Charles Meadows]

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.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Nice job Aaron!

Why, thank you!

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Aaron:
1. In Matthew 26 Jesus told his followers that the bread and cup were His body and blood. Does this text support or deny Transubstantiation? It does neither. It is nonetheless true that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have any part in the Son of Man. So what is the nature of that eating and drinking? Does saying that this eating and drinking is spiritual make it any less real and true?

2. Does your text support or deny an earthly kindgom?

3. When one approaches your text ignorant of the truth that the Israel of God is made up of the children of Abraham by faith, and that the promises were unto Abraham and his Seed, meaning Christ, that the Temple is already rebuilt, that the house of David is already standing again, that Christ is already seated in the throne of His glory, it might appear that the text supports Premillennialism, but only then. His Kingdom is here and it will never end. Are you not regenerate? Are you not raised from the dead? Are you not already seated with Him in the heavenlies? (Eph. 2:4-7) To say that these things are spiritual is not to say they are not real or true. It's to say they are eternal.

4. It actually agrees with the other teachings on the rewards of suffering much better. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory....

5. f your view of this text is correct, all I can say is, What a jip! To have temporary 1/12 rule of a infinitesimal fraction of the world's population in a dinky little piece of real estate that's going to burn up in only 1000 years?

6. But before we consider any more of your questions, answer mine first. Are you still of the opinion the Scriptures contain no allegory?

Aaron, allow me to answer you before Chaz starts giggling again.

1. Saying this is my body does not demand any particular understanding by itself. However, he did include the command to do this in rememberance of me. Therefore, the only legitimate understanding is that of a memorial, like what Baptists claim. So taking that one example devoid from the rest of its context, one might get transubstantiation. We have the luxury of considering the entire context though.

2. It supports an earthly kingdom. The idea that it is a reference to heaven is so horribly laughable that it really doesn't deserve attention. However, liberals need to be addressed, so I will direct this primarily to Chaz when I address his absurd post.

3. You obviously don't get it. Being premillenial doesn't demand being that one is classical dispensationalist. I am not of the CD persuasion. In fact, I spend as much time dealing with them. They just don't destroy the kingdom, like everyone else does.

I know of these positions that would agree with you on what you said:

1. Progressive dispy
2. Posttrib, premill
3. Prewrath
4. New Covenant dispy

You see, we don't have to play the butcher to the doctrine of the kingdom just because we see a connection between Israel and the New Covenant community.

4. This is factually untrue. You do not rule over the nation of Israel in heaven. The church does not rule over the nation of Israel right now. Again, specific promise, to specific people, at a specific time.

5. No jip at all. You just don't understand the kingdom. The jip would be the amill approach, which teaches a rulership position right now, when Christ said we would suffer and be persecuted in this world. No Aaron, our glory is to come.

6. My answer is that none of Scripture is allegory if by allegory one means a story that is not historically true. Pauls use of the word allegory was symbolism for a historical story. Sarah and Hagar actually existed. He didn't make them up.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
1. The regeneration here will be heaven.

2. 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).

3. The disciples, and all believers will be vindicated in heaven when the evildoers are judged.

4. Matthew really doesn't develop his eschatology a lot.

5. He definitely doesn't see a two-tiered scheme with a millenium and then a heaven. He describes heaven in very messianic terms.

Aaaahhhh, the luxury of being amillenial and it being okay to be insane. What a life.

1. It is not heaven. Read the verse Charles. THE REGENERATION is an event that will take place at a specific time. They didn't all die at the same time. Don't you ever get tired of making stuff up to suit your preconceived ideas?

2. How convenient, you are advocating that people ignore what the verse says and pull in a bunch of other verse that are even in Matthew. You call those verse "context"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. While I would state that all of Scripture is context to a degree, you are just making stuff up again. What is wrong with just dealing with the promise Christ gave to the disciples?

3. Wow, just wow. 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. Man up, pick a position, and try to defend it. Try to deal with the actual verse instead of just firing birdshot into the air and hoping to hit something.

4. What exactly does this mean? I already know your low view of Scirpture, but please explain yourself. If you mean that Matthew didn't write a systematic theology, I would agree with you. If you mean his eschatology was obscure, I would say that I expect an amill person to say that.

5. So, which is it? Is his eschatology undeveloped or does he definitely not see the two-tiered system?

 

[Daniel David]

I guess we should wonder if the apostles ever made mention to this promise anywhere in the book of Acts or their own personal letters. That would help clear things up.

Wait a minute, Peter said something about it almost immediately in Acts. Let us take a looksie:

Acts 3
18 "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.

19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,

21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

Do you get that? Israel must repent in order for the Lord to return and bring about the refreshing. Duh duh duh duh. What is the refreshing? Why simple, it is when the Lord returns to restore all that Adam lost. It is when paradise will be restored, Satan will be bound, the curse of sin over the earth will be lifted, when the body will not decline, etc.

Please note verse 21. Heaven would receive Christ until a particular time. In other words, Christ would be in heaven until it was time to do something. What is that something? the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

What ancient prophets could that be talking about? Hmmmm, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.

Charles, please stop now. I feel like some kind of bully.

 

[Charles Meadows]

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

 

[trailblazer]

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....

Here is what Ireneaus had to say: "The church, indeed, though desseminated throughout the world, even to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth and the seas and all things that are in them; and in the one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was enfleshed for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit,

1- "who through the prophets preached the [distribution of the orderly events such as,],

2- "the coming, the birth from a Virgin,"

3- "the passion [sufferings],"

4- "the resurrection from the dead,"

5- "and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Son, Christ Jesus our Lord,

6- "and His [second]coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to recapitulate all things (that is, restore what Adam lost through sin),

7- "and to raise up all flesh of the WHOLE human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, Savior and King, according to the invisible Father's good please, Every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess Him, and that He would exercise just judgment toward all;

8- "and that, on the other hand, He would send into eternal fire the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became rebels, and the godless, wicked, lawless, and blasphemous people;

9- "but, on the other hand, by bestowing life on the righteous and holy and those who kept His commandments and who have persevered in His love -both those who did so from the beginning and those who did so after repentance - He would bestow on them as a grace the gift of incorruption and clothe them with everlasting glory...

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 10

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."

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

 

[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???

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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?

 

[trailblazer]

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?

 

[Aaron]

DD said:
...none of Scripture is allegory if by allegory one means a story that is not historically true. Pauls use of the word allegory was symbolism for a historical story. Sarah and Hagar actually existed. He didn't make them up.

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.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

 

[trailblazer]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
"I just believe that the SAME DAY is the 70th WEEK of Daniel is a 7-year period."

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!

 

[av1611jim]

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

 

[Daniel David]

Aaron, you simply don't understand. Equating the church with spiritual Israel is what several premill schemes do. You are arguing against a particular rapture position, not millenium position.

 

[trailblazer]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
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."

"They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, UNTIL THE DAY when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17:27

(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!

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Aaron, you simply don't understand. Equating the church with spiritual Israel is what several premill schemes do. You are arguing against a particular rapture position, not millenium position.

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?

 

[Aaron]

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.

 

[Daniel David]

Okay folks, my computer has been down for a few days, and the thread turns into chaos.

Aaron, I will say this as nicely as possible. Your study and understanding of eschatology is very limited and undeveloped.

You are arguing against classical dispensationalism. You know what, I do the same thing.

You obviously have never heard of the various other premillenial eschatologies that I have posted already on this thread that agree with your view of Israel and the Church. Ever hear of Covenant premillenialism? I guess not.

Anyway, they aren't the only ones. How about progressive dispensationalism? How about New Covenant dispensationalism? How about historic premillenialism?

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.