Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

[Darrell C]

Welcome back OldRegular. I missed you.

Btw, I spent quite a bit of time reading Darby. Although, I merely scratched the surface of what he wrote (he was tremendously prolific) I didn't find anything that was not Scriptural. Perhaps you can quote him for me and let me know if I missed something.

You may disagree with dispensation thinking as Darby taught it, and there are some aspects that (as you know) I do, too. However, I can also see great error among those who would teach some other popular scheme.

It is far better for each person to be persuaded and be able to give Scripture reasons for that persuasion.

To that end, it is good that these discussions occur so an airing of views can be seen and the Scripture statements of support be shown that folks be edified.

Again, welcome back, you've been missed.

I've been thinking perhaps I might try to find some works of Darby myself. I am always interested in teachings concerning the Rapture, and though I don't do much extra-biblical reading I am curious to see how his views compare with my own studies.

You don't have any online links, do you?


God bless.

 

[Greektim]

I've been thinking perhaps I might try to find some works of Darby myself. I am always interested in teachings concerning the Rapture, and though I don't do much extra-biblical reading I am curious to see how his views compare with my own studies.

You don't have any online links, do you?


God bless.

We've identified one of your problems, then.

 

[Darrell C]

We've identified one of your problems, then.

Not sure how you see making Scripture the primary resource is a problem.

It's like counterfeit money: if you want to be able to identify it, you need to study the genuine article.

This helps me not to have doctrines or concepts that may actually originate through man interfere with the Doctrine of the Bible.

Isn't this ORs charge constantly in regards to Darby? People are Pre-Trib because of Darby's teaching and influence? I agree with that in part, because many people do embrace this view but not because they have concluded it through study, they have simply adopted the results of someone else's study. But that doesn't mean all Pre-Trib believers have. I won't deny that Darby certainly had an influence, and that influence was certainly in the fellowships I have, and still attend.

But, I am Pre-trib because of the study I have put into it. I made up my mind a long time ago I wanted to know truth, and certain issues such as Eternal Security and the Pre-Trib Rapture are two which I knew I didn't really know for myself. At this point in time, on both, and many other issues, I know this for myself.

And this is one reason why I start threads on these issues, because if there is someone who can point out error or weakness in my doctrine, then you can believe I want them to share it with me.

But going back to the three resurrections in Revelation, would you agree or disagree that there are three resurrection presented?

And giving your own position, I will cede the Two Witnesses for now, and ask, do you see the two in Revelation 20?
And that's about it for me for today, so will check in for your answer when I come back.


God bless.

 

[Greektim]

Not sure how you see making Scripture the primary resource is a problem.

It's like counterfeit money: if you want to be able to identify it, you need to study the genuine article.

This helps me not to have doctrines or concepts that may actually originate through man interfere with the Doctrine of the Bible.

Isn't this ORs charge constantly in regards to Darby? People are Pre-Trib because of Darby's teaching and influence? I agree with that in part, because many people do embrace this view but not because they have concluded it through study, they have simply adopted the results of someone else's study. But that doesn't mean all Pre-Trib believers have. I won't deny that Darby certainly had an influence, and that influence was certainly in the fellowships I have, and still attend.

But, I am Pre-trib because of the study I have put into it. I made up my mind a long time ago I wanted to know truth, and certain issues such as Eternal Security and the Pre-Trib Rapture are two which I knew I didn't really know for myself. At this point in time, on both, and many other issues, I know this for myself.

And this is one reason why I start threads on these issues, because if there is someone who can point out error or weakness in my doctrine, then you can believe I want them to share it with me.

But going back to the three resurrections in Revelation, would you agree or disagree that there are three resurrection presented?

And giving your own position, I will cede the Two Witnesses for now, and ask, do you see the two in Revelation 20?
And that's about it for me for today, so will check in for your answer when I come back.


God bless.

I just think this is a naive and unrealistic approach to Scripture. And it is historically not how Christians have approached learning the Bible. So much of this concept comes from the post-enlightenment rationalism and individualism. "We" want to be emmancipated from any kind of perceived authority that we swing to the "no creed but Christ" or "no book but the Bible" end of the spectrum. I find that to be extremely unfortunate as God has gifted many in his church as able teachers that Christian should avail themselves to. I trust the fruit of self-studying Christians much less if it is not guided by helpful aids.

 

[DHK]

I just think this is a naive and unrealistic approach to Scripture. And it is historically not how Christians have approached learning the Bible. So much of this concept comes from the post-enlightenment rationalism and individualism. "We" want to be emmancipated from any kind of perceived authority that we swing to the "no creed but Christ" or "no book but the Bible" end of the spectrum. I find that to be extremely unfortunate as God has gifted many in his church as able teachers that Christian should avail themselves to. I trust the fruit of self-studying Christians much less if it is not guided by helpful aids.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way or to sound nasty, but your reply sounds very similar to many of the Catholics I encounter in the Other Christian Denom. Forum. They say they would rather rely on their Catechism, their superiors, those that have gone on before them, etc. It sounds like the same argument, and therefore they put down sola scriptura, one of our most important Baptist disctinctives.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Paul commended them for studying the OT and verifying from it the NT message that he preached to them. This is something we all should do.
In our private study the Bible should be our final authority. I use other reference material, commentaries, Greek aids, dictionaries, encyclopedias, software, and what I can find on-line as well. Still the Bible is central to my study.

 

[Darrell C]

I just think this is a naive and unrealistic approach to Scripture.

Whereas I know it is the pattern set forth in Scripture.

This is why we have Scripture.

And when we see men focused on what men teach, rather than what the Word teaches, it is not hard to understand why there is so much division in the Body.

"Augustine taught this, Calvin taught that, Darby said this..."

And you are interpreting what I say incorrectly. There are teachers I suggest to people. For those who are more intellectual in their approach, I would suggest Sproul. He is a teacher that I think atheists, for example, can relate with better. For those who appreciate Expository preaching that has less of a "classroom" atmosphere, John MacArthur (who overall I view to be the best teacher found in broader circles). For those of less growth, Stanley. His ministry caters, I believe, to people not well versed and even to those who are hurting. A gentler approach.

The point is...we need to get our heads out of the history books and allow God to work with us through His Word. That is what He did in the lives of these historical "fathers." Why wouldn't He do it in our lives as well?

Doesn't mean we can't use them as a source of reference, but, it doesn't mean we have to conform our studies to everything they believed.

They were...fallible. Scripture is not.

And it is historically not how Christians have approached learning the Bible.

I would agree...that is why there is so much division, because they were disobedient to maintain the Doctrine they were given.

Historically the approach of the believer to Scripture is to take it as it is given, not add to it. The Pharisees and Sadducees are good examples of a failure to maintain Doctrinal Purity. They also example the danger of embracing the doctrines of men.

Now, let's consider the point of three resurrections in Revelation: why have you not answered my question?

I am not appealing to a System, to a Teacher, but only to Scripture itself.

Are there three? Two? Or one?

So much of this concept comes from the post-enlightenment rationalism and individualism.

I have no clue as to what concept you might refer to, but it is completely irrelevant to my own studies, and imposes assumption on your part.

"We" want to be emmancipated from any kind of perceived authority that we swing to the "no creed but Christ" or "no book but the Bible" end of the spectrum.

On the contrary, I would like to see auythority reestablished in the Body of Christ, and the only way that can be accomplished is for the Body of Christ to come into a Historical Christian Character which is in obedience to some very basic principles.

Then we would not have Joel Olsteens (Spelling?) and Benny Hinns running around, because their false doctrine would be in stark contrast to what is known to be legitimate.

Nothing wrong with people reading books about the Bible, but, that should supplement reading the Books of the Bible. And when a believer needs these books, it should be in their youth in Christ, not years and years later when they should have been taught already how to properly interpret.

I find that to be extremely unfortunate as God has gifted many in his church as able teachers that Christian should avail themselves to.

I agree, and that is relevant to what I have said...how?

I didn't say one could not benefit from commentary. Don't you think if I were of the perspective you impose on me that...I wouldn't be on forums providing commentary and debating/discussing doctrine?

But not all are gifted in areas of the Word. While all Christians have a mandate to study, that doesn't mean everyone is going to be a Teacher or Preacher. We are told, in fact, "Be ye not many Masters/Teachers."

So a true Reformation in the Church would have the Body, finally, coming to agreement in Doctrine, and the only way to do that is going to be to redirect attention back...

...to the Word of God.

And I have sought to do that in this thread, and, I like to think, every thread I start (though there is a facetious one every now and then).

I trust the fruit of self-studying Christians much less if it is not guided by helpful aids.

And I trust, not at all, an embrace of Theological System one is forced to overlook obvious errors because they wish to be a part of that System.

I have seen this, my friend. I have seen people completely throw previous views away because they do not fit the System. Friend of mine went to Seminary College, embraced the A-mil view, and some of the nonsense he speaks these days in incredible. One conversation we had he said he now believed we needed to approach Scripture from a philosophical view, rather than Theological.

He embraced the doctrines of men and his life has produced some disturbing fruit.

Whereas he used to study Scripture.

Now, if you don't mind...how many resurrections do you see in Revelation?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't want you to take this the wrong way or to sound nasty, but your reply sounds very similar to many of the Catholics I encounter in the Other Christian Denom. Forum. They say they would rather rely on their Catechism, their superiors, those that have gone on before them, etc. It sounds like the same argument, and therefore they put down sola scriptura, one of our most important Baptist disctinctives.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Paul commended them for studying the OT and verifying from it the NT message that he preached to them. This is something we all should do.
In our private study the Bible should be our final authority. I use other reference material, commentaries, Greek aids, dictionaries, encyclopedias, software, and what I can find on-line as well. Still the Bible is central to my study.

I will say this, which is not a defense of being Catholic, simply a means of presenting why many embrace Catholicism...it is orderly and disciplined. That appeals to some people, and we might see it in those who embrace other Systems.

If the Catholic Church held to a sounder doctrinal position I would be a member myself. But, because of my study, I cannot be, and have found Baptists to be nearer to a sound Theology than any other group (which does not deny some very good teachers among certain other denominations).


God bless.

 

[Greektim]

By your definition of resurrection: 1

The other stuff needs its own thread.

 

[Darrell C]

By your definition of resurrection: 1

The other stuff needs its own thread.

Not sure I gave a definition of resurrection, which is actually a good point to look at. In the Rapture, resurrection is not just a bodily resurrection which results in dead tissue being reanimated and the conscience returned to it, it is a being made like Christ, which we normally call glorification.

The Two Witnesses are physically dead (again, speaking from a view that does not ascribe a symbolic meaning, so bear with me), are raised from that physical death, and then caught up (technically called up, caught up implied, or assumed, if you prefer) to Heaven, which demands glorification.

The Tribulation Martyrs (thus designated because they did not take the mark of the Beast, which is specific to the very period described in Revelation) are made alive again, this is clearly physical, but, hints at glorification (though I don't think we can be overly dogmatic and deny a view it is physical only) due to their reigning with Christ the entire thousand years.

The Rest of the dead are raised when the thousand years are up, and again, a glorification of sorts is demanded, unless we have embraced annihilation. But this is more than doubtful because the New Testament does not present a picture of annihilation in regards to eternal punishment, but indicates an ongoing and unceasing torment.

All three of these events involve resurrection, so if they are not viewed as resurrections as described in Revelation, then what is in view?


God bless.

 

[Greektim]

All three of these events involve resurrection, so if they are not viewed as resurrections as described in Revelation, then what is in view?


God bless.

This is the crux of the issue. And the issue is about one's interpretive approach to Revelation. You are reading it as if it is to be taken literal. I think that is silly mainly b/c that doesn't fit the genre that it is. That goes for the 2 witnesses as a resurrection. And that also goes for 2 different supposed resurrections in Rev 20. I am approaching from a completely different hermeneutical perspective. Until that debate happens, then arguing over how many resurrections is moot, IMO.

By the way, I've heard arguments from futurist as to why they interpret Rev that way. But I have NEVER heard a futurist argue their view from the genre that Rev is. My deep felt conviction is that such a consideration would never hold water. Futurism and the genre of apocalypse mix as well as water and oil.

 

[Darrell C]

This is the crux of the issue.

And you have offered no response from the genre perspective you interpret it through.

If it is not resurrection in view...what is it?

And the issue is about one's interpretive approach to Revelation.

Right, I said that.

However, to place Revelation into a "genre" which is not Prophecy...is what doesn't make sense.

Internally we are told that specifically:



Revelation 1:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


Revelation 22:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


So how do we define what is meant?

Same word used here:


Matthew 13:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:


And what is in view but a foretelling of a generation not in existence at the time the prophecy is given.

That is the "genre" of Revelation.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You are reading it as if it is to be taken literal. I think that is silly mainly b/c that doesn't fit the genre that it is.

This is a false argument, Tim, because I often acknowledge metaphor, symbology, typology, et cetera.

Revelation certainly contains figurative language, but, we see that figurative language revealing truths. Satan is not literally a dragon but there is literally an entity named Satan who plays a part in the Revelation depiction of events. Israel is not literally a woman but is literally portrayed as being where Christ came from, and will literally be preserved for 3 1/2 years.

And the genre is Prophecy, and like all prophecy...it will be fulfilled to the jot and tittle.

Name one prophecy in Scripture that has been fulfilled that did not either use figurative language, or, was not fulfilled precisely as it was given (howbeit we understand it in hindsight after fulfillment). And I don't mean prophecy that has more than one application, that is irrelevant to the question as a whole.

That goes for the 2 witnesses as a resurrection. And that also goes for 2 different resurrections in Rev 20.

I can understand viewing the Two Witnesses as speaking about something other than men (though it cannot be born out from the text), but are you going to say that the First Resurrection doesn't really mean that those who did not take the mark and worship the beast...

...aren't really resurrected? It says that but it doesn't mean that?

And the rest of the dead do not live again after the thousand years are up? And you can ascribe any amount of time you like to this, but you are forced to admit that this thousand years separates those raised and the rest of the dead.

At best, based on the reasoning of some, seems as though the least we could attribute to this is one thousand "days."

What do you think it means, if it doesn't mean a thousand years, and do you nullify the separation spoken of in the text?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Until that debate happens, then arguing over how many resurrections is moot, IMO.

Set the terms, Tim. But if you're saying one has to convert to your approach, that is not going to happen. That doesn't mean we can't have a meaningful discussion and debate between the two. You show me my weaknesses, I show you yours (of course weaknesses assumed by us), and it might just be, Tim, we may actually teach each other something that might help us. If nothing else, debates like these help us to understand the why, rather than the what, of what our brethren believe.

By the way, I've heard arguments from futurist as to why they interpret Rev that way.

I know, we have spoken on several occasions.

But I have NEVER heard a futurist argue their view from the genre that Rev is.

That is an assumption on your part that is I/we who have confusion about the genre.

It is prophetic, and I see no logical grounds for taking a common literary form seen throughout Scripture and creating a new genre. This perceived "genre" doesn't exist in Scripture. I have said it before...I see absolutely no allegory in Scripture.

My deep felt conviction is that such a consideration would never hold water.

And that is understood.

Which is why a discussion such as this is sweetest between pre-millennials. About the only contribution Preterists, Amils, and Historicists can make is to rail against what is perceived as hyper-literalism. Not even going to mention Idealism.

But let me ask you, was the Prophecy of Christ literal, or not? Is there any prophecy in the Old Testament that is considered to replicate the "genre" you ascribe to Revelation?

Futurism and the genre of apocalypse mix as well as water and oil.

Is this true of Daniel?

Was Christ prophesying in Matthew 24 and 25?

I understand your view, Tim, but, I do not see it as consistent with the Prophecy of Scripture.


God bless.

 

[Greektim]

I'm gonna be honest with you, Darrell. You write way too much. I can't read all of it much less respond to everything you write. You analyze each sentence and respond with a paragraph or more. Not necessarily a bad thing, just makes it hard to dialogue.

I have made it my goal to keep my comments on here brief and to the point. I used to break down every statement in the past (as you have done), but it is way too time consuming. I recommend trying that as well.

 

[Greektim]

The genre of the book of Revelation is no easy matter to address mainly b/c it has elements of multiple genres. Yes it refers to itself as "prophecy" but that doesn't limit its genre either. And in what way is it a prophecy? I think you are assuming something that is predicated on a futurist assumption. The vast majority of prophetic literature dealt with the present writer's circumstances. Only a small portion of it was forecasting the future, and that mainly had to do with offering a final eschatological hope.

Revelation also bears the marks of a circular letter. And I'm not just referring to chs. 2–3.

Lastly, and most obviously, these 2 elements above must be subsumed under the overarching genre of apocalypse. Rev is one of many Jewish/Christian apocalypses of that era. Therefore it must be treated as such. A good way to do this is to start reading some Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. It is wacky but informative for understanding the genre.

 

[OldRegular]

There are three resurrections listed in Revelation, that is just the fact.

And that does not include the resurrection that takes place at the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.

Everyone knows and acknowledges this.


God bless.

That is a crock of bull Darrell C!

 

[Darrell C]

That is a crock of bull Darrell C!

Show me in Scripture why they are not resurrections, OR.

You have been asked to do so many times.

Have at it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The genre of the book of Revelation is no easy matter to address mainly b/c it has elements of multiple genres. Yes it refers to itself as "prophecy" but that doesn't limit its genre either. And in what way is it a prophecy? I think you are assuming something that is predicated on a futurist assumption. The vast majority of prophetic literature dealt with the present writer's circumstances. Only a small portion of it was forecasting the future, and that mainly had to do with offering a final eschatological hope.

Revelation also bears the marks of a circular letter. And I'm not just referring to chs. 2–3.

Lastly, and most obviously, these 2 elements above must be subsumed under the overarching genre of apocalypse. Rev is one of many Jewish/Christian apocalypses of that era. Therefore it must be treated as such. A good way to do this is to start reading some Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. It is wacky but informative for understanding the genre.

Okay, Tim, short and sweet (assumed on my part), as I am out of time: I gave a reference which shows that the Book contains past, present, and future knowledge, which brings up the point that it is a Book of Prophecy.

God calls it Prophecy.

You keep ascribing "assumption" on my part, but, my view is taken directly what this Book speaks internally. It does not rely on me defining it, it defines itself.

Secondly, rather than defining what Revelation is, let's simply examine the passages. In my posts (and I apologize for the length, I can use shorter responses if that suits you better) I asked a few questions, so I will ask a couple now and we can go from there:

1. If the events are not resurrections, please share what you feel they are.

2. Short enough?



Hope you and everyone has a great night, even you OR.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

Hope you and everyone has a great night, even you OR.


God bless.

Every day, every night is great, a blessing from GOD; that is, if you don't have it corrupted by a bunch of "trash talk" from the dispensational crowd!

 

[Darrell C]

Every day, every night is great, a blessing from GOD; that is, if you don't have it corrupted by a bunch of "trash talk" from the dispensational crowd!

Well for that I give God thanks, and glad you are enjoying God's blessings.


God bless.