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

[John of Japan]

Well nor is 'you must be born again' a metaphor, and nor is 'destroy this temple....' but you passed them off as metaphors in your post #62. But they are certainly figurative language. I would say they are 'tropes,' figures of speech that involve a deviation from the expected and literal meaning of words. and so is 1,000. That number is constantly used in the Bible meaning 'all that there are.' Winston Churchill used 1,000 in the same way in one of his famous wartime speeches: 'If the British Empire should last for another thousand years, men would still say, "This was their finest hour!"' He could have used a hundred or a million, the sense would have been the same-- all the years it lasted (not very many as it turned out).

This is a good post. You are interacting well with figures of speech. I don't have time to deal more with this post, but I appreciate your attitude. But I will say that Rev. 20 is quite different from your Churchill quote in that (1) 1000 is mentioned 6 times, with explanations about what will occur in the 1000 years. Figures of speech are not repetitious like that. It certainly reads like John was referring to a literal period of time. (2) Your view that since other uses of 1000 are figurative, then all of them must be, is not logical.

Maybe we can do a thread on 1000 all by itself, because I'm out of here due to Icon's silly shenanagins.

 

[Iconoclast]

Boy has this thread gotten far, far away from the OP, which has not been answered. I still see no blessings from the amil position being touted here. Not only that, the author of the OP has turned the whole thread into an attack on my and my beliefs. Wow. Just wow.

Tell you what, I don't think I'll participate anymore. I'm back teaching, we're having special meetings--and the misunderstandings and attacks and mis-definitions, etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum, of the last two posts are just two many to answer. Icon does that. He simply loads on such long and involved posts that no one has time to answer them--or inclination. He's free now to continue to attack me personally, misrepresent me, etc., to his heart's content--thus avoiding the OP he himself wrote. (Dispensationalism is latent Arminianism? That's a total joke.)

Quoting you 7 times and giving a brief answer to those quotes is not an attack....it is simply answers to your attacks.
This is exactly what everyone has suggested to you in several posts.
Of course this time Icon is the problem....yes we can see that.
You have meetings and papers to grade..we understand.
I have no need to attack you personally as you suggest.
My comments were related to the error that is found in dispensational fragmenting of Redemptive history and why it leads to wrong conclusions...
Your observations and post sought to defend the error by going after each poster in one way or another....we just observed it and answered.

 

[John of Japan]

Quoting you 7 times and giving a brief answer to those quotes is not an attack....it is simply answers to your attacks.
This is exactly what everyone has suggested to you in several posts.
Of course this time Icon is the problem....yes we can see that.
You have meetings and papers to grade..we understand.
I have no need to attack you personally as you suggest.
My comments were related to the error that is found in dispensational fragmenting of Redemptive history and why it leads to wrong conclusions...
Your observations and post sought to defend the error by going after each poster in one way or another....we just observed it and answered.

I dare you--I defy you--to name one single post in which I have personally attacked you or anyone else on this thread. (Chilton, the fake scholar, is not on the BB--and by the way, I never personally attacked him on those other threads, though "fake scholar" might be construed as an attack--though I consider it to be merely descriptive.)

 

[agedman]

I long ago embraced the Doctrines of Grace (modified limit) and am also premillennial.

The definition JofJ gave as Paul uses “dispensation” is accurate.

The stewardship CAN also be represented IN time, but dispensation is not typically used in Scriptures related to time - but is “administration,” a “special responsibility,” “commission.” (Ephesians 3, Colossians 1)

Personally, I typically use “dispensation” outside of the Greek definition, so it would include aspects relating to a period of time.

As a premillennial thinking believer, I do not work from a perspective of Darby.

I will make these observations specifically about him.

I dare post that few if any B.B. contributors have actually read much of that man’s truly exhaustive writings to know first hand just what he taught. I had not, but have taken time to attempt to find him in error.

The peer review of his work, and the scholarly examination of what he wrote was thoroughly examined and found to not conflict with Scriptures. The conflicts were when he would confront some preconceived views, or some long standing traditional view. But not the Scriptures.

Darby was not Heretical, and such a claim is made (imo) by the unlearned out of parroting and not out of scholarship.

I am premillennial not because of Darby, but because such remains the clearest most valid way of holding consistency throughout the Scriptures.

 

[Jerome]

I long ago embraced the Doctrines of Grace (modified limit) and am also premillennial.

The definition JofJ gave as Paul uses “dispensation” is accurate.
.....
I am premillennial...because such remains the clearest most valid way of holding consistency throughout the Scriptures.

Spurgeon's testimony of the blinders being removed:

"I have had an increase of faith in one or two respects within the last few months. I could not, for a long time, see anything like the Millennium in the Scriptures. I could not much rejoice in the second coming of Christ, though I did believe it. But gradually my faith began to open to that subject and I find it now a part of my meat and drink, to be looking for, as well as hastening unto, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!"

 

[Iconoclast]

I dare you--I defy you--to name one single post in which I have personally attacked you or anyone else on this thread. (Chilton, the fake scholar, is not on the BB--and by the way, I never personally attacked him on those other threads, though "fake scholar" might be construed as an attack--though I consider it to be merely descriptive.)

Okay....these are found in this thread alone. They are comments you make to those who oppose or disagree in part with your posting.
Posters mention this to you, but you just ignore it.
When we answer you,in kind, it is you who claim it as an attack;

1]What I was driving at is that the glory of God is the very foundation of dispensational premillennialism. However, I do not see that in other eschatologies.

2]What is there in other eschatologies (not just the Bible, but the theologies) that encourages their adherents to live for God's glory?

3] the amil and postmil positions do not depend on the glory of God for how God works in history.

4]Without your answer on that definition being correct, it's fruitless to continue because you won't understand the theology.

5] It was a teaching based on the liberal idea that Mankind is not inherently sinful

6]As for a conservative postmil theology, I'd like to know how they get around the depravity of man. It's a game killer for them

7]speaking of the Glory of God....Well of course it is. But it is foundational in dispensationalism in a way that it is not in other eschatologies.

8]I have no idea where you got this set of dispensations, but it certainly isn't what I teach, as per the correct meaning of "dispensation." So far you would have a failing grade, if you were one of my students.
9]It's not my meaning, it's "the meaning.

10]It would be much more impressive if you said you came to your position through solid, hours long Bible study.

11]My impression of you and the other preterists here on the BB is that you don't really understand dispensationalism, and you certainly don't understand the allegorical hermeneutic that you embrace.

12] That being the case, I don't see how you guys can intelligently reject literal interpretation, and therefore dispensationalism. And watching a debate certainly doesn't give that knowledge.

13] But he rejects dispensationalism with an educated, thoughtful understanding of it, not willynilly without knowing what it is.

14]You see, you don't even know that you are doing allegorical interpretation.

15]So, then, I'll assume you don't know any authors who make it foundational in amillennialism. You're in the eschatalogical dark about it.

16]And for the record, the glory of God is not foundational in all theology. There are various aberrant theologies, even among evangelicals, that do not make it foundational.

17]Your post, "I don't play that game," means to me that you really don't know the Greek word and it's wider meaning. It also means to me that you have no standing to criticize dispensationalism.

18]And again, you yourself do not know what allegorical interpretation is if you think that. I really must do a thread on hermeneutics, because there is so much ignorance on the BB about it.

19]Allegorical interpretation does not simply mean looking at Scripture and making up an allegory

20]Look, folks, don't be embarrassed if you interpret non-literally. "Allegorical" is not an insult, it is an historical name for non-literal interpretation. I'm not attacking you if I say you interpret allegorically. If you interpret that way, embrace it and let's move on. Otherwise you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

21]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.)

22]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.

23]Once again I receive the impression that you don't even know what a metaphor is or how to recognize one

24]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.

25]But you and the others can't even define "dispensation" correctly.

26]I've noticed that when people run out of logic, they revert to personal attacks.

27]The sad thing is, you don't even know you are doing allegorical interpretation. And you're the guy who was so up on fake scholar Chilton,

28]And for the record, you are seeing symbols (I suppose you mean figures of speech) when they are not there

29]Figures of speech are clearly non-literal, but you use "symbol" for words and phrases that can easily be interpreted literally, having no sign of any non-literal language. You can't so easily dismiss plain English.

Well.looks like we found a few...no one complains, they just answer to what you offer

 

[Yeshua1]

Well nor is 'you must be born again' a metaphor, and nor is 'destroy this temple....' but you passed them off as metaphors in your post #62. But they are certainly figurative language. I would say they are 'tropes,' figures of speech that involve a deviation from the expected and literal meaning of words. and so is 1,000. That number is constantly used in the Bible meaning 'all that there are.' Winston Churchill used 1,000 in the same way in one of his famous wartime speeches: 'If the British Empire should last for another thousand years, men would still say, "This was their finest hour!"' He could have used a hundred or a million, the sense would have been the same-- all the years it lasted (not very many as it turned out).

The 1000 years would still indicate a literal passage of time where Jesus was reigning on this earth though...

 

[John of Japan]

Okay....these are found in this thread alone. They are comments you make to those who oppose or disagree in part with your posting.
Posters mention this to you, but you just ignore it.
When we answer you,in kind, it is you who claim it as an attack;

Not one single one of those posts are insulting, or calling people names, or attacking anyone's character. They are either disagreements or what I consider to be valid criticisms. If you can't take that, you'd better get off the Internet.

And if you think it is an insult or personal to disagree with you, I truly feel sorry for you. If that is you (I don't say it is), you are a very proud individual who thinks you are always right. If it is not you, you had better rethink this post.

I dare you--I defy you--to submit any one of those posts which you say are personal attacks to the moderators for judgment as to whether they are personal attacks. If any one of them are judged to be personal attacks, I will immediately apologize. But I will not apologize for disagreeing with you, for saying you are mistaken, for saying your definition is wrong, or anything of that sort.

 

[Yeshua1]

Boy has this thread gotten far, far away from the OP, which has not been answered. I still see no blessings from the amil position being touted here. Not only that, the author of the OP has turned the whole thread into an attack on my and my beliefs. Wow. Just wow.

Tell you what, I don't think I'll participate anymore. I'm back teaching, we're having special meetings--and the misunderstandings and attacks and mis-definitions, etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum, of the last two posts are just two many to answer. Icon does that. He simply loads on such long and involved posts that no one has time to answer them--or inclination. He's free now to continue to attack me personally, misrepresent me, etc., to his heart's content--thus avoiding the OP he himself wrote. (Dispensationalism is latent Arminianism? That's a total joke.)

I have always seen the A mil position as not giving to us the Messianic Age as foretold by the OT prophets and the NT Apostles, as Jesus would not really be reigning as in His perfect will getting done in that viewpoint. When has the earth exer experienced the reborn Paradise foretold by the prophets under Messiah?

 

[John of Japan]

I have always seen the A mil position as not giving to us the Messianic Age as foretold by the OT prophets and the NT Apostles, as Jesus would not really be reigning as in His perfect will getting done in that viewpoint. When has the earth exer experienced the reborn Paradise foretold by the prophets under Messiah?

Well said.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well said.

The interesting thing here is that BOTH Historical premil and Dispy would affirm this, and many reformed have been premil, not all just amil!

 

[Iconoclast]

Not one single one of those posts are insulting, or calling people names, or attacking anyone's character. They are either disagreements or what I consider to be valid criticisms. If you can't take that, you'd better get off the Internet.

And if you think it is an insult or personal to disagree with you, I truly feel sorry for you. If that is you (I don't say it is), you are a very proud individual who thinks you are always right. If it is not you, you had better rethink this post.

I dare you--I defy you--to submit any one of those posts which you say are personal attacks to the moderators for judgment as to whether they are personal attacks. If any one of them are judged to be personal attacks, I will immediately apologize. But I will not apologize for disagreeing with you, for saying you are mistaken, for saying your definition is wrong, or anything of that sort.

John,
The list I compiled is exactly true of how you interact with us.
They are your posts.
I do not complain because on an internet forum I expect a good amount of interaction.
I do not complain about it...you do. I expect it.
I personally enjoy and learn from your posts. In fact I know I can count on you to try and remain faithful to your view.
I have respect for how you serve the Lord.
That being said....I reserve the right to be critical of some of what you post.
I do not think I am wrong....but guess what....wait for it.....neither do you.
That is the nature of these boards.
For what it is worth, I am out here in the real world everyday.
The people I speak with are not concerned with, hyperbole, tropes, metaphors,parables,symbols, types, anti types,etc.
They want to get down to the main thing in a way that is understandable, not obscure it and make excuses as to why no answer can be given.
I do not have thin skin and have no need to submit anything you have said to anybody. We each give an account of ourselves to God.
I have no need to go after you....you are not an enemy although I find that sometime your tone is condescending....I get that because you are offering .correction most of the time. SO IT GOES WITH THE TERRITORY.
I also understand my posting can be annoying so to speak....to someone like you or TC. It can be because although you want to blast it out of the water you have to admit sometimes it makes you think differently, or re explore things....which I see as a benefit anyhow.
If I have posted in a way that you believe I am insulting you Then I am sorry for that....that is not my intention. All I am doing is responding th o what I see from you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have always seen the A mil position as not giving to us the Messianic Age as foretold by the OT prophets and the NT Apostles, as Jesus would not really be reigning as in His perfect will getting done in that viewpoint. When has the earth exer experienced the reborn Paradise foretold by the prophets under Messiah?

'Paradise' is either the reigning of the saints in heaven in the present dispensation (Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:4) or that time when the New Jerusalem descends from heaven and we dwell forever in the new heavens and new earth, where 'the dwelling-place of God is with men and He will live with them' (Revelation 21:1-5).

 

[agedman]

'Paradise' is either the reigning of the saints in heaven in the present dispensation (Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:4) or that time when the New Jerusalem descends from heaven and we dwell forever in the new heavens and new earth, where 'the dwelling-place of God is with men and He will live with them' (Revelation 21:1-5).

Why?

Paradise was that “holding place” of OT believers seen in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It was sometimes called Abraham’s bosom.

The song about being stoned in paradise is “Rock My Soul in the Bosom of Abraham.”

Maybe it was the rock music?

Maybe the availability of a certain chair design?

 

[John of Japan]

What about this one?

Bible Dictionary

Dispensation

(Gr. oikonomia, "management," "economy").

• The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation. There are usually reckoned three dispensations, the Patriarchal, the Mosaic or Jewish, and the Christian.

OR
Compelling Truth

The word "dispensation" means "a system of order, government, or organization of a nation, community, etc., especially as existing at a particular time." Looking through the Bible, we can find seven distinct dispensations, or "ways of doing things" that were God-ordered and God-ordained. Each dispensation has a purpose in the overall story.

Do you believe in 7 or 3? For being such a Plain concept John just a few websites has a bunch of different answers. Maybe you need to enlighten them all on the Truth

The first definition is either from a covenant theologian or a progressive dispensationalist (and that system is a compromise with covenant theology). Both of those hold to two or three dispensations, sometimes up to five. Your second definition is by a regular or revised dispensationalist.

Both definitions are correct in that they do not call a dispensation "a period of time" or "an age." (Cf my lexicon definition of the Greek word oikonomia.)

The great majority of dispensationalists hold to seven, as taught by Charles Ryrie in his landmark textbook, Dispensationalism. I follow Ryrie, a revised dispensationalist.

 

[John of Japan]

John,
The list I compiled is exactly true of how you interact with us.
They are your posts.

Of course they are. But it's called debating--not attacking. I have not attacked you or anyone else personally.

For what it is worth, I am out here in the real world everyday.
The people I speak with are not concerned with, hyperbole, tropes, metaphors,parables,symbols, types, anti types,etc.
They want to get down to the main thing in a way that is understandable, not obscure it and make excuses as to why no answer can be given.

So you think I am not in the "real world"? I spent 33 years in the "real world" of other countries; I go on visitation every week, and have many "real world" friends in our church.

As for "real world" people not doing figures of speech, of course they do, all the time: "sick as a dog" (simile); "raining cats and dogs" (idiom); "He's a disaster" (metaphor); "I told you a thousand times" (hyperbole), etc.

I have no need to go after you....you are not an enemy although I find that sometime your tone is condescending....I get that because you are offering .correction most of the time. SO IT GOES WITH THE TERRITORY.

I'm a full time Bible college (and seminary) prof. That means that I'm a professional at theology. If an amateur boxer gets in the ring with a pro, he should expect to get a few bruises. I don't apologize for what I am and who I am, or for my debating style. I teach. It's what I do, and what God made me for.

If I have posted in a way that you believe I am insulting you Then I am sorry for that....that is not my intention. All I am doing is responding th o what I see from you.

Apology accepted.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why?

Why not?

Paradise was that “holding place” of OT believers seen in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It was sometimes called Abraham’s bosom.

I take the 'bosom of Abraham' to be the same as the 'Paradise' of Luke 23:43. Both Lazarus and the penitent thief went there at once after death. I don't see why it is the special preserve of OT saints. It is the place where saints dwell in glory until the Last day when they receive their resurrection bodies and dwell in the NH & NE.

 

[prophecy70]

I'm a full time Bible college (and seminary) prof. That means that I'm a professional at theology. If an amateur boxer gets in the ring with a pro, he should expect to get a few bruises. I don't apologize for what I am and who I am, or for my debating style. I teach. It's what I do, and what God made me for.

The problem is that, no amount of professionalism can ever can automatically make what anyone believes to be correct. There are 1000s of books on the subject by many "professionals" all having different views.
I do not think you being a "pro" is leaving any one bruises.
Its a pro boxer getting in the ring with amateurs with his hands bound.
Even the person that supported you the most on here, doesn't agree with you 100%. So its not so easy.

 

[prophecy70]

The first definition is either from a covenant theologian or a progressive dispensationalist (and that system is a compromise with covenant theology). Both of those hold to two or three dispensations, sometimes up to five. Your second definition is by a regular or revised dispensationalist.

I believe OT prophecies concerning Israel in the OT are fulfilled by the Church (the remnant of Israel) in the NT, and Jesus is On the throne now ruling like he said he was going to. He came the first time to set up the kingdom, it was not conditional, he did as he was going to do. Israel's rejection did not postpone the the kingdom, it expanded it through the gentiles.

By definition what am I?

And please don't say wrong

 

[Yeshua1]

'Paradise' is either the reigning of the saints in heaven in the present dispensation (Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:4) or that time when the New Jerusalem descends from heaven and we dwell forever in the new heavens and new earth, where 'the dwelling-place of God is with men and He will live with them' (Revelation 21:1-5).

Except that there is a period of time where Jesus rules here on earth, as all earth worships Him, and then turned over to God the father in the Eternal State!