What does Amillennialism /Postmillenial offer compared to what premillenialism offers?

[John of Japan]

I've done it several times on the B.B. It's looking at places where 'one thousand' comes up and looking to see if it is usually interpreted literally; it isn't. I can quote the texts again if you really want.

I remember your efforts. Never thought you proved anything.

If you think that not interpreting a word with wooden literalism is allegory, then you yourself have not the faintest idea what the word means.

Whatever.

 

[John of Japan]

If interpreting in a non-literal way is allegory, then the Lord Jesus was guilty of it several times, and the Pharisees and others were not to blame for misunderstanding Him (John 2:19-21; John 3:3-4)

For crying out loud, those are metaphors!!!! How many times do I have to point this stuff out to you guys. Those passages have nothing to do with allegorical interpretation. Come on, try to remember your high school English.

And Jesus was not interpreting in those passages, He was teaching. (Good grief.)

and the Roman Catholics are right about Transubstantiation because they interpret John 6:53ff and Matthew 26:26 etc. literally.

No, they're just as bad as you, because they can't even recognize a simple metaphor. My wife and I talked to a Catholic woman the other day about that, and she didn't even know the word metaphor, much less what one was.

I give up. I'm done here tonight. Won't be back on until Monday. The preterists and amils here on the BB know nothing about hermeneutics or figures of speech. Ignorance abounds.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

For crying out loud, those are metaphors!!!! How many times do I have to point this stuff out to you guys. Those passages have nothing to do with allegorical interpretation. Come on, try to remember your high school English.

For crying out loud, 1,000 years is a metaphor!!!! It has nothing to do with allegorical interpretations. When the Psalmist talks about the cattle on a thousand hills, or a thousand ages being like a watch in the night, he's using a metaphor and a simile.
Come on, John! You can do better than this!

 

[prophecy70]

For crying out loud, those are metaphors!!!! How many times do I have to point this stuff out to you guys. Those passages have nothing to do with allegorical interpretation. Come on, try to remember your high school English.

And Jesus was not interpreting in those passages, He was teaching. (Good grief.)

No, they're just as bad as you, because they can't even recognize a simple metaphor. My wife and I talked to a Catholic woman the other day about that, and she didn't even know the word metaphor, much less what one was.

I give up. I'm done here tonight. Won't be back on until Monday. The preterists and amils here on the BB know nothing about hermeneutics or figures of speech. Ignorance abounds.

Can you explain how "This is my Body" is a metaphor?

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

I just read a whole argument against that being a metaphor, Even Martin Luther didn't see it as one.

I am NOT saying I believe what the catholics believe, Im just asking YOU.

So how is it just a simple metaphor, But you take the 1000 years concrete literally?

 

[rlvaughn]

I did not start out as a dispensationalist, but in the historic premil camp along with my father and grandfather. When I applied to my mission board, I was rejected the first time due to my opposition (taught me by my grandfather) to the phrase in the doctrinal statement, "the church as peculiar to the age of grace."

I have Churches and the Church, and have used your grandfather's position as an example of one of the several Baptist views on the origin of the church. Even though a number of my mentors followed Bro. Rice and the Sword of the Lord, his view was fairly unique in our circles.

I learned in my studies that the glory of God was the foundation of dispensationalism, but it didn't strike home until one day when I praised the sermon of another mentor, who was at that time the director of our board and a solid dispensational theologian, and he rebuked me, telling me that praising his sermon did not glorify God. That really clicked, and was probably the final thing that made me a dispensationalist.

Years before I had memorized 1 Cor. 10:31, but when it made sense theologically--in dispensational theology--it had a profound effect on my life and ministry.

I guess I still don't get the reason you say that glorifying God is foundational to dispensational premillennialism, but not the other eschatological viewpoints. Would you say that your grandfather's historic premillennialism was not founded on glorifying God? I would think it was.

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,

See the Ryrie quote in my post to Martin. I could certainly give other quotes. As Ryrie puts it on that same page, the glory of God is a sine qua non of dispensationalism.

Here is Ken Gentry; He Shall Have Dominion pg220
God creates the world for a purpose. Despite the confusion brought into the question by certain leading dispensationalists,
Reformed theology sees God’s glory as the ultimate goal of universal history.
His creational intent in bringing the world into being is to manifest his own glory: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (Rev 4:11; cp. Ro 11:36; Col 1:16). All men live before God in the material 7 world, which he creates for man’s habitation. 8 9
5. According to Ryrie: “A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a rather technical matter which will be discussed later. . . . The covenant theologian in practice makes this purpose salvation, and the dispensationalist says the purpose is broader than that, namely, the glory of God.” Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 40. See also: PEBP, 83. 6. Reformed theology’s emphasis on God’s glory is expressed in its most basic, covenantal creed: the Westminster Standards. See the Confession of Faith (3:3, 7; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 16:2, 7; 18:1; 33:12), the Larger Catechism (Q. 1, 12, 13, 190), and the Shorter Catechism (Q. 1, 2, 7, 47, 66, 101, 102, 107). See also: Kuiper, God Centered Evangelism, 93; Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:535ff. 7. See also: Ps 8:1; 19:1–16; 89:11b; 82:8b. 8. 2Ch 16:9; Ps 33:13–15; Pr 15:3; Ac 17:28; Heb 4:13. 9. Dt 32:8; Ps 8:6; 24:1; 115:16; Pr 15:3; Da 5:23; Ac 17:26–27; 25:24–31; Rev 4:11.

 

[Iconoclast]

You mean that one cannot claim to prove theology by the ole "The Holy Spirit showed that to me?"

neither can they prove anything with tweets with no scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is some postmill stress from K Gentry...how would you answer this charge? Do you think it is partly true?

Amillennialism denies this understanding of the power of Christ’s resurrection and his ascension to God’s right hand.
The amillennialist implies that Adam’s fall is the more powerful force in mankind’s cultural development.
He sees Christ’s redemption as “souls-only, church-only, Christian families-only.” He draws the line at culture, which is to say, he draws a judicial boundary around the Gospel’s transforming power. This is because he has already drawn an eschatological boundary around the transforming power of the Gospel.49

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is some postmill optimism;
In contrast to the nations’ futile rage, God sovereignly declares: “But I [emphatic personal pronoun in the Hebrew] have installed my King on Zion” (v. 6). God does not speak of this installed one as “a king” or “the
king,” but as “my King.” Verse 7 expands our understanding of this installation, showing the Messiah himself speaking: “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: / He said to me, ‘You are my Son; / today I have become your Father.’” The “decree” is a pledge of adoption by God, a holy coronation rite establishing this King’s legitimacy (see: 2Sa 7:13–14; Ps 89:26–27). The word “today” suggests a formal moment at which the title applies to the new ruler.

Rather, than occurring at Christ’s second advent, as many assume, the New Testament relates it once again to the first century: at the exaltation of Christ beginning with his resurrection. “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’” (Ac 13:33; cp. Ro 1:4). At the resurrection/ascension God installs Christ as the King (Ro 1:4), who will rule from God’s right hand (Ro 14:9–11; Eph 1:20ff; Co. 1:18; 1Pe 3:22; Rev 17:14; 19:16).

The Great Commission speaks of Christ’s being “given” all authority — apparently at his recent resurrection (Mt 28:18; cp. the aorist tense in Php 2:9).


But what of this installation “on Zion”? Zion is an historical site, to be sure; it is a Jebusite fortress David captures and renames the “City of David” (2Sa 5:6–9). With David’s bringing the Ark to Zion, the hill becomes sacred (2Sa 6:10–12).
Because of its holy significance, then, the name “Zion” gradually applies beyond the historical site to include Mount Moriah where Solomon builds the temple (Isa 8:18; Joel 3:17; Mic 4:7) — and eventually to all of Jerusalem (2Ki 19:21; Ps 48:2, 11–13; 69:35; Isa 1:8). “Zion became in Hebrew tradition the central symbol of God’s rule, the kingdom of God, a realm of justice, righteousness, and peace.” As 31 such it can even represent the whole Jewish nation (Isa 40:9; Zec 9:13).

In the New Testament Zion/Jerusalem transcends Old Testament realities, reaching to heaven itself (Gal 4:25–26; Heb 12:22; Rev 14:1).

Thus, God transfers the center of theocratic rule to heaven, where Christ presently rules over his kingdom (Jn 18:36; Rev 1:5).

Now all that the enthroned Messiah need do is “ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v 8). The Lord promises his Messiah the “nations” (not just one nation, Israel) and “the ends of the earth” (not just one region, Palestine) as his permanent ‘possession” (v 8). Though they will resist him (vv 2:1–3), he will break them in his dominion (v 9).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is some postmill stress from K Gentry...how would you answer this charge? Do you think it is partly true?

Amillennialism denies this understanding of the power of Christ’s resurrection and his ascension to God’s right hand.
The amillennialist implies that Adam’s fall is the more powerful force in mankind’s cultural development.
He sees Christ’s redemption as “souls-only, church-only, Christian families-only.” He draws the line at culture, which is to say, he draws a judicial boundary around the Gospel’s transforming power. This is because he has already drawn an eschatological boundary around the transforming power of the Gospel.49

I disagree with its premise that unconverted people can be radically influenced by the Gospel. 'The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him.......' After the Restoration of Charles II in Britain in 1660, the people utterly rejected all the religious laws that had been imposed by the Puritans and the nation became increasingly dissolute until God moved on the country again 75 years later in the Great Awakening. A Christian culture will only come when more people are converted; something that Amil by no means rejects.

Amil sees the Kingdom of God entering the world with the coming of Christ (Mark 1:15 etc.), starting as small as a grain of mustard seed and growing; it sees Christians as already seated in the heavenly places, but at the same time suffering tribulation and persecution (John 16:33). There will be wars and rumours of wars, earthquakes etc. all through the age, but the Gospel will be preached through the whole world. This is BTW, exactly what we see in the world today-- the Gospel is making great advances throughout the world, but in the teeth of increasing persecution and the love of many growing cold.

My main objection to Postmil is that it denies the imminent return of Christ. He cannot come until the world has been improved beyond measure, therefore we can be like the wicked servant of Matthew 23:48 and say, "My Master delays His coming.....' The first Christians were looking eagerly for the Return of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Titus 2:13 etc.), and so should we be doing. 'If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay' (Habakkuk 2:3). [I utterly reject the Preterist idea that the Corinthian or Thessalonian Christians were eagerly awaiting the destruction of Jerusalem; that is ridiculous.]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Allegorical interpretation does not simply mean looking at Scripture and making up an allegory. It means interpreting in a non-literal way, and it goes back to Origen (3rd century), who copied Philo, and Augustine later on, right through the Catholic Church (skipping the original reformers) up until the present day.

Origen followed Plato in believing that man consisted in three parts-- body, soul and spirit. Therefore he accepted a three-fold method of interpretation, namely the literal, the moral and the mystical or allegorical. 'In his exegetical praxis, he rather disparaged the literal sense of Scripture, referred but seldom to the moral sense, and constantly employed allegory-- since only it yielded true knowledge' (L. Berkhof: Principals of Biblical Interpretation).

 

[Reformed]

I disagree with its premise that unconverted people can be radically influenced by the Gospel.

Michael Horton coined the phrase therapeutic deism to describe using God as moral therapy. It is not to be confused with actual spiritual change, as it is a counterfeit. When I was a Roman Catholic that is how I viewed God. I was a practical atheist in my day-to-day life, but when a moral crisis hit I would "try" God. We see it with people who flock to teachers like Joel Osteen. Many have never been converted but they exist in the periphery of the gospel. They may have a semi-Christian ethos, but they are not converted.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is some postmill optimism;
In contrast to the nations’ futile rage, God sovereignly declares: “But I [emphatic personal pronoun in the Hebrew] have installed my King on Zion” (v. 6). God does not speak of this installed one as “a king” or “the
king,” but as “my King.” Verse 7 expands our understanding of this installation, showing the Messiah himself speaking: “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: / He said to me, ‘You are my Son; / today I have become your Father.’” The “decree” is a pledge of adoption by God, a holy coronation rite establishing this King’s legitimacy (see: 2Sa 7:13–14; Ps 89:26–27). The word “today” suggests a formal moment at which the title applies to the new ruler.

Rather, than occurring at Christ’s second advent, as many assume, the New Testament relates it once again to the first century: at the exaltation of Christ beginning with his resurrection. “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’” (Ac 13:33; cp. Ro 1:4). At the resurrection/ascension God installs Christ as the King (Ro 1:4), who will rule from God’s right hand (Ro 14:9–11; Eph 1:20ff; Co. 1:18; 1Pe 3:22; Rev 17:14; 19:16).

The Great Commission speaks of Christ’s being “given” all authority — apparently at his recent resurrection (Mt 28:18; cp. the aorist tense in Php 2:9).


But what of this installation “on Zion”? Zion is an historical site, to be sure; it is a Jebusite fortress David captures and renames the “City of David” (2Sa 5:6–9). With David’s bringing the Ark to Zion, the hill becomes sacred (2Sa 6:10–12).
Because of its holy significance, then, the name “Zion” gradually applies beyond the historical site to include Mount Moriah where Solomon builds the temple (Isa 8:18; Joel 3:17; Mic 4:7) — and eventually to all of Jerusalem (2Ki 19:21; Ps 48:2, 11–13; 69:35; Isa 1:8). “Zion became in Hebrew tradition the central symbol of God’s rule, the kingdom of God, a realm of justice, righteousness, and peace.” As 31 such it can even represent the whole Jewish nation (Isa 40:9; Zec 9:13).

In the New Testament Zion/Jerusalem transcends Old Testament realities, reaching to heaven itself (Gal 4:25–26; Heb 12:22; Rev 14:1).

Thus, God transfers the center of theocratic rule to heaven, where Christ presently rules over his kingdom (Jn 18:36; Rev 1:5).

Now all that the enthroned Messiah need do is “ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v 8). The Lord promises his Messiah the “nations” (not just one nation, Israel) and “the ends of the earth” (not just one region, Palestine) as his permanent ‘possession” (v 8). Though they will resist him (vv 2:1–3), he will break them in his dominion (v 9).

The bible also speaks of the Messianic Age here upon the earth, which will be with King Jesus on earth literally, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Origen followed Plato in believing that man consisted in three parts-- body, soul and spirit. Therefore he accepted a three-fold method of interpretation, namely the literal, the moral and the mystical or allegorical. 'In his exegetical praxis, he rather disparaged the literal sense of Scripture, referred but seldom to the moral sense, and constantly employed allegory-- since only it yielded true knowledge' (L. Berkhof: Principals of Biblical Interpretation).

I am still searching for when the physical/lietral second coming became the spiritual one of some here!

 

[Iconoclast]

I do not mind amillenial thought and teachers at all.
I just do not see specific teachings but rather general ideas expressed.
I do not see postmill writers offering ideas about unsaved people being Christianized.....but instead I see them speaking of the gospel converting sinners.They speak of Spirit given revival having an impact

The bible also speaks of the Messianic Age here upon the earth, which will be with King Jesus on earth literally, correct?

Where does it say That? I see where it says he rules from the throne in heaven over the earth....but not on the earth until the last day.
Rev 20 mentions the term 1000yrs...people, beheaded saints reigning with Him for the 1000 yr period....but it does not say on the earth....the vision in John seeing into heaven.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not mind amillenial thought and teachers at all.
I just do not see specific teachings but rather general ideas expressed.
I do not see postmill writers offering ideas about unsaved people being Christianized.....but instead I see them speaking of the gospel converting sinners.They speak of Spirit given revival having an impact

Where does it say That? I see where it says he rules from the throne in heaven over the earth....but not on the earth until the last day.
Rev 20 mentions the term 1000yrs...people, beheaded saints reigning with Him for the 1000 yr period....but it does not say on the earth....the vision in John seeing into heaven.

The main task of the Church is to preach/teach Jesus, and see the elect brought to faith in Jesus and matured in the faith, and not spent in converting culture!

 

[Iconoclast]

I am still searching for when the physical/lietral second coming became the spiritual one of some here!

Let's try this again.....

No one here except maybe astericktom is saying Jesus literally came to earth..
What has been said is......the judgment itself in 70 ad.....was a coming in judgment....Jesus stayed in heaven...but instead of coming with blessing upon the people.....He sent judgment instead of blessing.
The judgment itself was a sign......a sign of what? It was a sign the Jesus was reigning and speaking from heaven.
The actual second coming and the rapture happen on the last day.

 

[Iconoclast]

The main task of the Church is to preach/teach Jesus, and see the elect brought to faith in Jesus and matured in the faith, and not spent in converting culture!

It is not an either or situation.....culture does not get converted.....sinners Do!
As the gospel takes root more and more believers stand for truth and live godly.
It is not unsaved goats getting Christianized like happens now with unscriptural altar calls, and little booklet studies.
It will only happen through radical biblical reformation and revival such as we have not seen as yet.

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,

My impression of you and the other preterists here on the BB is that you don't really understand dispensationalism,

We understand it well enough to see the errors of it...

and you certainly don't understand the allegorical hermeneutic that you embrace.

This charge ignores spiritual realities that are literal and it is a diversion to avoid the issues as they are raised....each time a section of scripture of scriptural and biblical concept is raised...these general assertions are brought forth to avoid having to interact with the passages being discussed.

That being the case, I don't see how you guys can intelligently reject literal interpretation,

WE BELIEVE IN LITERAL INTERPRETAION, JUST SEE MORE SYMBOLS THAN YOU DO.

 

[John of Japan]

For crying out loud, 1,000 years is a metaphor!!!! It has nothing to do with allegorical interpretations. When the Psalmist talks about the cattle on a thousand hills, or a thousand ages being like a watch in the night, he's using a metaphor and a simile.
Come on, John! You can do better than this!

Once again I receive the impression that you don't even know what a metaphor is or how to recognize one. See if this helps. A metaphor is a "Figure of speech in which a word or expression normally used of one kind of object, action, etc. is extended to another" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 243).

When Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd," that is a clear comparison, so it is a metaphor. There are hundreds of metaphors in Scripture, including the parables, which are called "extended metaphors." But "thousand" is not one of them.

The word "thousand," repeated six times in Rev. 20, is never compared to anything, but simply stated. If you wish it to be a figure of speech, abandon the metaphor, because it is not one. That is why among scholars, any non-literal interpretation of the 1000 years is called allegorical interpretation.