View Full Version : What is amillennialism? Why does it lead to really bad theology?
What is amillennialism?
Answer: The name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ is called amillennialism. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix "a" in amillennialism means "no" or "not." Hence, amillennialism means no millennium. However, in fairness to those who are amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at all. They just don't believe in a LITERAL millennium; a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth.
They instead believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present Church age is the kingdom over which it was written that the Christ would reign. There is no doubt that Christ now is sitting on a throne, but just because He is sitting on a throne does not mean that it is the throne of David. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet, just because He is ruling does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.
The prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally. Therefore, prophecies concerning Christ's second coming should also be expected to be fulfilled literally. For these reasons, an allegorical interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be rejected and a literal or normal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be adopted.
What is amillennialism?
Here is the link for the previous post: What is amillennialism? (http://www.gotquestions.org/amillennialism.html)
Amillennialism is a diving board into a cesspool of confusion, distortion and just plain deception.
There are three main pillars of amillennial teaching:
Spiritualizing Scripture [draining the prophetic element and power out of the Scriptures]
Replacement theology [anti-Semitism],
A General Resurrection [no Rapture].
They overlap and each lead to really bad theology, but all begin with an amillennial understand of endtimes prophesy.
. . . and the pew-warmers don't have a clue as to the confused theology they are being taught.
They overlap and each lead to really bad theology, but all begin with an amillennial understand of endtimes prophesy.
. . . and the pew-warmers don't have a clue as to the confused theology they are being taught.
The rejection of a literal Millennium has led to so much confused theology. . .
. . . once Bible prophesy is spiritualized away, all manner of inbred and self-serving theology of church enters in.
Church theologians began to develop the idea that the Israelites had permanently forfeited all of God's covenants by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. This view taught that these covenants now devolved upon the church, and that the church is the only "true Israel" now and forever.
This view also taught that the Jews will never again have any future as a divinely chosen people, and that the Messiah will never establish His Messianic Kingdom on earth that was promised to them.
This was, of course, tragic for the Jews. It led to centuries of abuse and persecution under so-called Christian banners of various kinds. It was also tragic for the church because we lost the significance of our Jewish roots.
By the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-425), the famous Bishop of Hippo, Origen's system of interpretation dominated the Christian scene. It was Augustine who systematized the allegorically based teaching into a cohesive theology that would dominate the church for over 1000 years. By the 5th century, the church believed it was the sole possessor of Israel's covenant promises.
These views, commonly called "Amillennialism," were thus embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. These views also do not present the "Second Coming" in the literal terms they are presented in the Bible. Even the later Reformers failed to challenge his allegorically based, unrefined eschatology, and so these views continued to influence most of the Protestant denominations deriving from the Reformation- even to the present day.
Among the tragedies that also emerged from the amillennial view was an attendant anti-Semitism that ultimately led to the Holocaust in Europe.
Amillennialism: From Augustine to Auschwitz (http://khouse.org/articles/1999/184/)
The rejection of a literal Millennium has led to so much confused theology. . .
. . . once Bible prophesy is spiritualized away, all manner of inbred and self-serving theology of church enters in.
Amillennialists say the Church is now Israel because natural Israel has been cut off but scripture says differently:
Romans 11:25 - Paul says:
".... Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the gentiles come in…"
Who is Israel here? The church? No, the church has experienced no such hardening or blindness. The believing remnant of Jews within the church? No, they are in the church because they have believed. This statement can only be understood if it is seen that the unbelieving nation of Israel is in view.
In v.26 - Paul says:
"And so (at the fullness of the Gentiles) all Israel WILL be saved, …"
Who is Israel here? The church or the believing Jewish remnant within the church? No, the members of the church whether Jew or gentile are saved ALREADY. This verse points to an Israel who will only be saved in the future. Who are they? The nation of Israel currently (at the time of Paul's writing as well as today) existing in a state of unbelief towards the gospel.
Is the Church now Israel (http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/amillennial.HTM)
Amillennialism is a diving board into a cesspool of confusion, distortion and just plain deception.
Since Bible prophesy requires study of much of the Bible [notably Daniel, Isaiah and the minor prophets] that doesn't get covered in homilies aimed at the sixth grade level, most pew Catholics don't have a clue.
Any understanding that Catholics get on topics like the Gog Magog War, the Great Tribulation and the Rapture most probably come from shows on cable television.
That they don't fathom anything about amillennialism, replacement theology or preterism, OR THAT THEIR CHURCH's THEOLOGY is ateup with these confused teachings only proves the confused state of the typical pew Catholic.
Amillennialism is the key to much BAD THEOLOGY.
Amillennialism has been the predominant eschatology in Christendom since the fourth century A.D., but I simply cannot understand how anyone can profess to believe the Bible and buy in on this dismal and misanthropic scheme.
Unfortunately, there are many Premillennialists that pay lip-service to the fact of the future millennial reign of Christ, but deny that the resurrected saints have any material part in it: thus, making their brand of Pre-Millennialism into defacto Amillennialism for the resurrected saints.
They teach that we shall indeed be ruling and reigning with Christ at that time, but not as active participants and recipients of the benefits of this paradise: we shall be like angels, they say, neither marrying nor having children, nor finding any form of material fulfillment in the renewed earth.
Amillennialism, which began formally with the heretic Origen, has no Scriptural foundation. Amillennialism contradicts the plain language of prophetic Scripture in so many places that it can hardly be conceived how anyone who adheres to this heresy could ever be called a "Bible believer".
Amillennialism: the most pervasive heresy in history (http://www.apostasynow.com/topics/mill/amill.html)
Amillennialism
This view is that there is no (a-) 1000 year (millennium) reign of Christ on earth. Amillennialists take the reference to a 1000 years in Revelation 20:3-4 as being symbolic for a complete period of time. Christ will return at some point and will judge humanity and the eternal state will begin. This position spiritualizes the prophecies of the Old and New Testament and sees them being fulfilled spiritually in the time between Christ's first coming and His second coming.
There [are] dangers of using this method of interpretation (as admitted by amillenarians):
The fist is when you spiritualize Scriptures you are interpreting Scripture by a method which would be utterly destructive to Christian doctrine.
The second danger is they do no follow the same method in relation to prophecy in general, but only where it is necessary to deny premillennialism.
The third problem is they justify the spiritualizing method as a means of eliminating problems of fulfillment of prophecy (its born of necessity rather than a natural product of exegesis).
The forth problem is they do not hesitate to use spiritualization in areas other than prophecy if it is necessary to sustain their doctrine.
The fifth problem with the amillennial method of interpretation is it has been proved by history that the principle of spiritualization spread easily into all basic areas of theological truth (Christ's birth to resurrection, and coming again can be spiritualized).
The sixth problem is that the amillennial method does not provide a solid basis for consistent system of theology.
And finally, amillennialism has not arisen historically from a study of prophetic Scripture, but rather through its neglect.
Doctrine of Eschatology (http://www.bibleteacher.org/con_30.htm)
Amillennialism is something that Martin Luther didn't get around to thinking though, so it is one of the bad habits that Lutherans inherited from the Roman Catholic Church. This lady's experience with trying to integrate amillennialism with Bible prophesy are typical:
Ten years ago, I didn't know what "Amillennialism" even meant. I had read the Bible, cover to cover, several times and it seemed pretty clear to me (more or less) what it said about end times.
Over time, I understood that, like most mainline churches, the Lutheran view of end times was amillennial. Not all amillennial churches are in agreement over the details, but this is basically the view my synod holds:
There isn't a future "millennium." We've been IN the "millennium" since Jesus' first coming.
There is no "Tribulation." Things will continue to get worse and may intensify briefly before the end of the world.
Satan was bound at the cross. He will be loosed for a brief period before the end of the world. During that time, it will SEEM as though the Gospel is not having an effect and evil will be rampant. Some believe we are in that period now.
Israel as a nation has served its purpose. The physical land of Israel has no more significance to God than any other country. We, the church, are now the "Israel" that God cares about.
The prophecies of antichrist have been fully fulfilled in the Papacy.
A remnant of the Jews will continue to be saved, but there will never be a time when ALL the Jews will be saved.
Jesus returns unexpectedly, with no warning, and the world ends. There is no prophecy left to be fulfilled before that happens.
The Book of Revelation includes the end of the world, but is primarily the story of the time between Jesus' first and second comings in symbolic language.
The "rapture" is when believers are caught up at Jesus' return, but the idea of a pretribulation rapture (such as portrayed in the Left Behind series) is heresy.At first, I accepted that all these things were true. The fault was with me. I read every Lutheran thing I could get my hands on. I read books and commentaries. I read material on the Internet. I even read Reformed Amillennial books and articles. I talked to pastors from other churches. I really tried to leave no stone unturned in my attempt to understand and adopt the Lutheran viewpoint.
I honestly started to think there was something seriously wrong with me spiritually if I could read all these things and STILL not get it. My friends will attest that I was going through a very dark period. I want to say again, that it was NOT ABOUT END TIMES. It was about God and His Word - and whether I could trust what He had to say or not. Of course, when I try to explain it, I wind up talking about end times, because that is where it comes out.
Looking back, it seems as though God (or Satan, some would argue) was directing my path. Books I came across by chance wound up affecting my thinking. People would come into my life at just the right time. Unrelated events opened other doors. And, time and time again, I had to deal with people that were taking the Bible symbolically.
Questioning Amillennialism: One Lutheran Woman's Search For Truth (http://www.geocities.com/questioningamillennialism/index.htm)
Any questions about amillennialism? questioningamillennialism2@yahoo.com
Amillenialism is a belief largely characterized by the supposition that the literal return of the Messiah and the 1000 year reign is not true, but there is instead a "messianic age" with the rule of the church body politic, or in more extreme cases, no millenial reign of Christ at all.
Amillenialism lends itself to a diminishing of the Judaic birthright as firstborn of the chosen of God. There is inherent and implicit replacement doctrines as the church "replaces" Israel, and in essence replaces even Christ himself on earth, becoming a self-ordained Christ -in -Proxy.
Because the Church in this view sets itself in the stead of Christ and the Jewish nation, this position leads to the denigration of both: Christ becomes of time and history, or ethereally out in a heavenly realm; ergo no longer greatly involved with earthly happenings and the Jewish nation becomes a a nation which God has dispossessed because of their rejection of the Church's messiah and therefore their lack of inclusion in such as well as their lack of recognition of the Church's birthright.
The Church in utter amillenialism does not look forward to a literal return of Christ, but rather brings in a "church age" making proxy decisions for the Messiah. Instead of a millenium of the reign of Christ on earth, there becomes a "messianic age" with a church and its figureheads as ushering in a utopian age, reinterpreting scrip-ture in terms of church-initiated doctrine and dogma.
In amillenialism, several characteristics arise:
• the church replaces Christ as "decision maker" and
• the church replaces the Word of God as the final authority
• the church replaces the Jewish nation as the chosen people
• the church confuses the sovereignty of God's dominion with the dominion given man.
More. . . (http://www.shoaheducation.com/amillenialism.html)
Eschatology, the study of the “last things,” flows directly from ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. This accounts for significant differences between what Catholics and Fundamentalists believe about the end times.
While Tim Lahaye (Left Behind) and other dispensationalists teach that God has two people – an earthly people (the Jews) and a heavenly people (the Christians) – the Catholic Church asserts that God has always had just one People, or family, throughout history.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that
This ‘family of God’ is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father's plan. In fact, ‘already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel . . . Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time.’ (CCC 759 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/759.htm)). Therefore, the Catholic Church has always understood herself as being the New Israel (Gal. 6:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.%206:16;&version=49;)) and the new People of God (1 Pet. 2:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Pet.%202:9-10;&version=49;)), the recipients of the New Covenant given through Christ.
The dispensationalist belief in two people of God leads to the teaching of a secret Rapture. This was developed in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby, an ex-Anglican priest who became convinced that “Christendom” – organized, institutional Christianity – was apostate, and that only a few “true believers” existed. Darby taught that many of God’s promises made to Israel, the earthly people, had not yet been fulfilled and would not be until the Church, the heavenly people, had been secretly Raptured. Subsequent dispensationalists claimed that the Millennium, the thousand years of Revelation 20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.%2020;&version=49;), will be a literal, earthly reign of Christ on earth following the Second Coming.
This belief is commonly called millenarianism, or millennialism, and has been rejected by the Catholic Church. In 1944 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned against
. . . the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches . . . that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. . . . The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely (see CCC 676 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/676.htm)).
While some early Church Fathers believed in an earthly, millennial reign of Christ, the idea was discarded in the fourth century. St. Augustine interpreted the reference to a “thousand years” as a metaphor for the Church age. This would become the implicitly accepted belief of the Church, even though the Catholic Church has still never made a formal statement about what the Millennium is or was – it remains open to debate.
Catholics and the Rapture (http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/PFarticle.asp?vm_id=6&art_id=1705&sec_id=3392)
Amillennialists believe that antichrist has already come and Revelation 13 has already been fulfilled, they have no doctrinal reason to expect or to attempt to identify the man of sin or the antichrist, which is soon to appear.
Amillennialists teach that we are in the Millenial Kingdom now, satan is bound and the nation of Israel holds no special significance to Bible prophesy.
Once one starts spiritualizing Scripture to fit your agenda, there is no limit to the confusion one can conjure up.
Since Bible prophesy is either symbolic or history, there is no immediency and they are content in building a kingdom to suit their theology: a social gospel tailored to build a better place to be lost in.
Amillennialism owes its major impetus to the well-known Catholic theologian Augustine. He decided that the kingdom could not be literal, holding that there will be no physical, earthly millennial kingdom over which Christ will rule. To Augustine, it must be a spiritual kingdom. The kingdom of God, he declared, was "in the hearts" of faithful men, not in an actual literal kingdom on the earth over which Christ would one day rule.
At first, he was convinced that the thousand-year kingdom of which the Bible spoke would be the period of time between the first and second advents of Christ. In time, however, he became disillusioned because the description of the kingdom in the Bible did not fit the reality of the world in which he lived. Subsequently he developed a form of interpretation that regards all of the Bible as subject to literal interpretation, but allegorizes prophetic Scripture. Under this system of interpretation, the Bible became a subjective patchwork which could be made to say whatever one wanted it to say.
In Luke 4:16-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:16-21&version=49), Jesus declared that He was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa. 61:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2061:1-2;&version=49;). The Messiah will bind up the brokenhearted, release prisoners from darkness, and proclaim the year of the Lords favor.
Thus, Jesus begins the 'year of the Lords favor' or the Messianic Age.
Link (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/rapture4.html)
Hi Sid,
I have read all your posts on the subject, but could you summarize the tenets of Amillennialism in one post for me?
Thanks.
I have read all your posts on the subject, but could you summarize the tenets of Amillennialism in one post for me?
Amillennialism is mostly known by what it denies:
There isn't going to be a literal millennium kingdom,
There isn't going to be a Great Tribulation
The Bible isn't literally true.
The Church has replaced Israel.
Satan is Bound
There won't be a rapture.
Once the literal truth of the Bible is denied, all sorts of figurative theology can be invented.
Blunders Of Amillennialism:
1. Amillennialism fosters no literal interpretation of scripture, even though Old Testament verses quoted in the New Testament were taken literally by New Testament authors, and Jesus Christ Himself.
2. Amillennialism equates the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven and the church. This permits misapplication of doctrinal passages. For example, if the Kingdom of Heaven is synonymous with the church, then it would be possible for a saved person to be “cast out into outer darkness” (Matt. 8:12).
3. Amillennialism teaches that the current age is the Millennial age. But the characteristics of the Millennium (Satan bound, no curse, no devils, absolute peace, longevity of life, ect.) are not in effect today.
4. Amillennialism also alleges that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, like Eph. 2:1,2. Once the literal, bodily resurrection is done away with, who is to say that Jesus Christ rose bodily? [See the readings in the NWT and NASB that deny the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:51,52.]
More . . . (http://www.biblebelievers.com/walker/walker_disp01.html)
I have read all your posts on the subject, but could you summarize the tenets of Amillennialism in one post for me?
Amillennialism is mostly known by what it denies:
There isn't going to be a literal millennium kingdom,
There isn't going to be a Great Tribulation
The Bible isn't literally true.
The Church has replaced Israel.
Satan is Bound
There won't be a rapture.Once the literal truth of the Bible is denied, all sorts of figurative theology can be invented.
Is this a cult? How can they say that the Bible isn't literally true?
I didn't realise that they were not part of the body of Christ.
CoreIssue
12-12-2006, 11:18 AM
Is this a cult? How can they say that the Bible isn't literally true?
I didn't realise that they were not part of the body of Christ.
That is a highly discussed point. Here is my view:
1. In the pure Vatican theology, it is a cult. No debate to it.
2. The high leadership are cult. No debate to it.
3. But, at the lower leaders and laity level, there are Christians there. What the last Pope called Catholics in name only.
They have come to Christ by grace alone and reject many of the RCC dogmas and doctrines.
They go to RC churches but are not truly RC, in the pure sense.
They are spiritually unhealthy, ignorant, non-productive and have no sane reason for being there.
The RCC leadership tolerates them for their numbers and money. Otherwise they would all be ex communicated.
But, at the lower leaders and laity level, there are Christians there. What the last Pope called Catholics in name only.
They have come to Christ by grace alone and reject many of the RCC dogmas and doctrines.
They go to RC churches but are not truly RC, in the pure sense.
They are spiritually unhealthy, ignorant, non-productive and have no sane reason for being there.
The RCC leadership tolerates them for their numbers and money. Otherwise they would all be ex communicated.
CI:
Excellent post!
There are many Christians in the RCC, but once they accept the Gospel, they are no longer Catholics.
Their only reasonable option is to leave and find a Bible-based ministry to feed their souls.
. . . they are starving where they are.
Thanks for the reply guys.
I was asking about amillennials, but we seem to have jumped to Catholics.
Does this mean that amillennialists are catholic?
I was asking about amillennials, but we seem to have jumped to Catholics.
Does this mean that amillennialists are catholic?
Not all amillennialists are Catholic, but RCism embraces amillennialism.
Not only them, but most of the Reformed churches also.
Once amillennialists start giving symbolic meaning to literal prophesy, they are well on their way to all manner of modernist theology.
I really can't understand how an amillennialist can look at the situation in the Middle East and not agree that the prophesies of the Bible are being fulfilled in our lifetimes.
The allegorizing of prophetic scripture allows the interpretation of these passages by the theology of the denomination interpreting them. For example, the Catholics would allegorize some passages quite differently than would some of the reormed churches. Thus, the allegorical position leaves all prophetic scripture open to interpretation by the theology one has. Under this system of interpreting what the prophets really said, everything is subjective and open to debate and the prophet's words cannot be taken literally.
Is the Church now reigning on earth?
Amillennialists tell us that Jesus and the Church are now reigning on earth. If the Church is reigning, then why is the world in the condition that it is in? They believe that Satan is bound and the Church is reigning, but evidence shows that true Christians are a small minority and are losing ground to doctrines of demons. The true Church has not even reigned in the Christian denominations, so how in the world could she be reigning in the world? Even scripture says that evil men will wax worse and worse, so how do we reign over them while they still are allowed to rule here?
Jesus told us to pray "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" If the kingdom has already come on earth there would be no reason to continue to pray this prayer if the prayer was already answered by God at Pentecost. Then why do those in amillennial churches still pray this example of prayer by rote? This is contradictory!
More . . . (http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/amillennial.HTM)
The allegorizing of prophetic scripture allows the interpretation of these passages by the theology of the denomination interpreting them. For example, the Catholics would allegorize some passages quite differently than would some of the reormed churches. Thus, the allegorical position leaves all prophetic scripture open to interpretation by the theology one has. Under this system of interpreting what the prophets really said, everything is subjective and open to debate and the prophet's words cannot be taken literally.
But doesn't this apply to every Eschatology/theology? Pre-Post and Amillennial? They all allegorise to a point, and naturally they'll all do it in such a way as to support their beliefs.
Is the Church now reigning on earth?
Amillennialists tell us that Jesus and the Church are now reigning on earth. If the Church is reigning, then why is the world in the condition that it is in? They believe that Satan is bound and the Church is reigning, but evidence shows that true Christians are a small minority and are losing ground to doctrines of demons.
Are true Christians really losing ground? The Bible says that we are more than conquerors.
The true Church has not even reigned in the Christian denominations, so how in the world could she be reigning in the world? Even scripture says that evil men will wax worse and worse, so how do we reign over them while they still are allowed to rule here?
I don't understand. Is it my place to rule over evil men on this earth?
Jesus told us to pray "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" If the kingdom has already come on earth there would be no reason to continue to pray this prayer if the prayer was already answered by God at Pentecost.
As I say, I have always been led to believe in a pretribulation rapture, but I am not so sure. Some seem to believe that Christ is reigning as we speak.
Thanks for the reply,
Take care.:):
CoreIssue
12-17-2006, 12:07 PM
But doesn't this apply to every Eschatology/theology? Pre-Post and Amillennial? They all allegorise to a point, and naturally they'll all do it in such a way as to support their beliefs.
Not true.
When a symbol has a clear and common literal meaning or the symbol is literally defined, then it is literal speech, even though it used allegorical terms.
As with the parables. They are allegorical, but Christ gives a literal explanation as well.
Or the Dragon of Revelation. It is literally defined as Satan.
Every symbol in Revelation is defined literally.
But Amils, in example, completely abandon those definitions and assign their own.
They don't like the Harlot being Rome, so the redefine it. They don't like a literal MK, so they change it. They don't want Israel back, in spite of such as the 70th Week of Daniel and all the OT Israel terminology and declarations of Revelation. So the say read Church wherever you see Israel.
And Mary where you see Woman.
Are true Christians really losing ground? The Bible says that we are more than conquerors.
Yes.
Thessalonians tell us there will be a Great Apostacy in the Last Days. We are in it now.
It says the 6th church will be small and weak, but raptured. The 7th will be spit out, by God, into the Trib.
[quote]
The true Church has not even reigned in the Christian denominations, so how in the world could she be reigning in the world? Even scripture says that evil men will wax worse and worse, so how do we reign over them while they still are allowed to rule here?
I don't understand. Is it my place to rule over evil men on this earth?
Exactly.
The Church was never intended to reign over Man. But to bring Man to God.
As I say, I have always been led to believe in a pretribulation rapture, but I am not so sure. Some seem to believe that Christ is reigning as we speak.
If Christ was directly reigning over the earth, would he be doing this bad of a job?
And which 'Church' is in control? The RCC, Dominionist, Kingdom Now, Joel's Army or who, exactly?
Had to throw in my 2 cents. Now back to Sid. :tiphat:
Some seem to believe that Christ is reigning as we speak.
Most believe that the last days will be characterized by apostasy. (http://p105.ezboard.com/fxcatholicfrm27.showMessage?topicID=174.topic)
I believe that the later is reality and the former is just wishful thinking.
Interestin thoughts Sid.
I am trying to understand a millennial reign on earth, but I can't find answers to some fundamental questions. You seem to understand what's going on Sid, can you answer them?
1.) What are the unbelievers actually doing during this reign?
2.) Where will they be?
3.) If the Lord is reigning, how will unbelievers, since they are not decieved, not know this?
4.) Is the holy spirit present?
5.) What will believers be doing?
6.) What sort of interaction goes on between believers and unbelievers?
7.) Will there be food? who will do all the work?
8.) Where will Christ be in this millennium?
9.) How will he rule?
10.) are believers in their glorified bodies? What about unbelievers?
11.) Is there sin on earth? How is it punished?
I've got many more questions, but I guess that will do for now. I just need scriptures that clarify what a millennium on earth would actually be.
It's like the temple thing. I cannot understand why we need one, but do we...and why? Isn't this going back to the Mosaic law?
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for the reply CoreIssue.
If Christ was directly reigning over the earth, would he be doing this bad of a job?
I don't know. Perhaps his kingdom is within the believers. God gave every man free will, and will not take that away. How will God rule over people who have no will to be ruled?
My question is, what if that prayer (Thy kingdom come, thy will be done) is referring to the kingdom of God within? That his will be done in the surrendered will of the believers on earth. As I say, how can God rule over people whose will is not surrendered to his?
I'm sure you will find this easy to answer, as you will know where to find the scriptures. It is just that these are nagging questions.
And which 'Church' is in control? The RCC, Dominionist, Kingdom Now, Joel's Army or who, exactly?
Or, all of them...through the ecumenical movement. (laughs)
Thanks for your time.
CoreIssue
12-27-2006, 10:19 PM
If Christ was directly reigning over the earth, would he be doing this bad of a job?
I don't know. Perhaps his kingdom is within the believers. God gave every man free will, and will not take that away. How will God rule over people who have no will to be ruled?
More than just in the believer.
Plus, as John says, in Revelation, he will visibly rule the earth with an iron scepter from Jerusalem. And Christ is our king.
In such direct rule this earth would never be run as it is run now.
My question is, what if that prayer (Thy kingdom come, thy will be done) is referring to the kingdom of God within? That his will be done in the surrendered will of the believers on earth.
That and his physical kingdom, during the Trib. Even further, his eternal kingdom on the New Earth.
As I say, how can God rule over people whose will is not surrendered to his?
God rules everyone, willing or not.
Yes, he will permit them to reject him. No, he will not let them go and do as they please.
Those who reject him can be as independent as they are able in the Lake of Fire for eternity.
He rules them but putting them where they are punished for their sins and unable to further harm saints or corrupt his creation.
I'm sure you will find this easy to answer, as you will know where to find the scriptures. It is just that these are nagging questions.
I had the same questions a long time ago.
And which 'Church' is in control? The RCC, Dominionist, Kingdom Now, Joel's Army or who, exactly?
Or, all of them...through the ecumenical movement. (laughs)
:eek: :D
CoreIssue
12-27-2006, 11:19 PM
Life in the Millennial Kingdom (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2486)
I had the same questions a long time ago.
So what are the answers?
CoreIssue
01-03-2007, 09:53 PM
Hopefully the link plus comments made by several will help you understand it.
No simple singular statement answer. One has to grasp grace, sacrifice, prophecy and the rest as parts and then put it together for the big picture.
That isn't easy and is never complete.
Street Sweeper
01-11-2007, 01:54 AM
End times prophecy other than Jesus' second coming and judgement has not been a focus of my attention until very recently. Indeed terms such as pre, post and amillenialism have simply not been part of my vocabulary.
I had not even heard of LaHaye and Jenkins 'Left Behind' series, but have now read 7 of the books and am thoroughly enjoying the story. The very first book, 'Left behind', I found to be a little stilted and cumbersome, but as the framework was established, the subsequent books have been a simply great read.
I was prompted to make a start into study of this very broad and complex subject matter by some of the things I read on this forum, and by other discussions with people in my church. I now have a couple of study guides covering 'Revelation' and 'The End Times' which I am slowly working through, and I have read through a compilation of essays on 'The Meaning of the Millenium' edited by Robert Clouse. This book presents essays by proponents of the 4 major millennial schools of thought, along with rebuttals to each essay by those holding the alternate views.
While I no doubt have a long way to go before I can be confident of an integrated viewpoint I think I am now starting to see the logic, links and some of the difficulties in each of the interpretive models. It seems that all flavours of millennialism have areas of strength and weakness, and for someone coming to the topic with relatively little knowledge, the very first thing to recognise is that the labels given to each view are not a good indicator to the beliefs of the various adherents.
When I started reading it seemed that pre-millennialism held the most promise, but I was turned off intensely by the dispensational perspective, which despite some of the comments in this thread, appears to have a closer heritage with Roman Catholicism that the other views. Post-millennialism despite having what I thought was a promising name, now seems to be a very weak liberal concept, and amillennialism which I first thought would be the liberal flag bearer, now holds my attention as the theory which most reasonably integrates the whole of scripture.
Admittedly in my state of limited knowledge I am prone to being swayed by every new argument that comes along, but the concept of 'progressive parallelism' of Revelation as described by Hoekema in his essay presenting the amillenial view is reasonable, and I think permits the best harmonisation with other scriptures.
CoreIssue
01-11-2007, 11:45 AM
With respect, if you see any pre-mill view closely tied with RCC, you do need more study.
Amill is an RCC invention. And it exists because it was used to make the RCC God's Kingdom on the earth.
To believe in Amil one has to abandon a literal reading of Revelation and go purely into Idealism and symbols.
In example, Revelation states Christ will physical return to the earth, rule for 1,000 years, then Satan will be release and then the earth will be destroyed and a New Earth created.
This is confirmed in places like 2 Peter and various Old Testment books that speaks of what life will be like during the Millennium.
In Amil we are in the MK now. But there is no Temple as described in Ezekiel. Christ is not ruling from Jerusalem. The AC rule has never taken place and on and on.
Amil cannot tolerate the existence and return of Israel as a nation. It says the Church has inherited the promised of Abraham.
But the covenant to Abraham is an eternal covenant. For the Church to take become the mechanism of fulfilling Abraham makes God a liar, since God said it would be fulfilled via his physical descendents.
So, are you willing to abandon literal words and meaning to embrace Amil? You have to do that to do so.
Street Sweeper
01-11-2007, 10:47 PM
Of course you’re quite correct. I do need to do a lot more study, and I recognise that my statement about RCC puts me at odds with the general acceptance of what defines dispensational pre-millennialism. My comment is based on the essay by Hoyt supporting dispensational premillennialism in the book I mentioned.(ed. R.G. Clouse)
Hoyt himself certainly notes the links of non pre-millennial perspectives with the Catholic Church.
“By spritualizing Scripture the church has been understood to be the totality of the kingdom. Passages such as Colossians 1:13 have been used to support this view. Roman Catholicism interpreted the visible hierarchy to be the Kingdom while Reformation theologians pointed to the invisible church”. (pp 69,70)
What struck me however was his explanation of the ‘mediatorial kingdom’ where he makes the statements:
“The mediatorial kingdom belongs to members of the church in the sense that as the bride of Christ and the queen, she will rule and reign with Christ in this Kingdom” Heb. 12:28; Rev. 3:21. (p 74)
and
“God exercises control over this Kingdom through a divinely chosen representative who speaks and acts for God with the people on the one hand and on the other represents the people to God”. (p 74)
Hoyt generates some ambiguity in his subsequent comment that “the mediator is always a member of the human race”(p74). I find it difficult however to recognise these claims as other than an appeal to papism.
So there is potential to find Roman Catholics under the beds of both dispensationalists and amillennialists.
Much of the premillennialist case against other millennial views which I have come across emphasises a liberal/modernist/Roman Catholicist – [most curious company] - predilection for spiritualising scripture. Invariably this is a technique leading to the denigrating of alternate understandings of Biblical revelation. The assumption - sometimes stated – is that ‘spiritualisation’ equates to a view that all prophetic references to Israel should now be interpreted as applying to the Christian Church.
I do not claim that Israel as a nation is excluded from Biblical eschatology. I note also the clear recognition of the Church within OT prophecy. Acceptance of such should not condemn the holder of these views to bear the stain of ‘liberal scriptural indifference’. Ladd, in his submission supporting ‘Historic Premillennialism’ gives praise to the work of B.B. Warfield who: “was the greatest exponent of a high view of Biblical inspiration of his day. He was prepared to accept any doctrine which could be proved which could be proved by the scriptures. If he ‘spiritualised’ the millennium, it was because he felt a total biblical hermeneutic required him to do so. This is not liberalism.” (p20)
Despite Ladd’s acknowledgment that valid evangelical interpretation allows for justifiable spritualisation, his comments above are preceded by the statement: “The opposite to a literal hermeneutic of the Old Testament is a ‘spritualizing’ hermeneutic, that is a hermeneutic which finds the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the Christian Church.” (p19)
It seems the term ‘spiritualisation’ carries much intellectual and cultural baggage. While the above definition limits its’ use to a context of OT prophecy and the Church, more general usage of the term seems to also encompass a liberal trait of scriptural re-interpretation and denial, as suits the personal preferences of the individual.
A third association to be made by the committed Christian and literalist will be the recognition of the heavenly states documented throughout the Bible. The different millennial interpretations all utilise different scriptural emphases and, I suspect, may in some cases ignore what other interpretations hold to be of utmost criticality. For myself I find difficulty recognising Hebrews 11 as other than an acceptable explanation of God’s promise to Abraham fulfilled.
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore. 13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
ref:
The Meaning of The Millenium, Ed. R.G.Clouse 1977, Intervarsity Press
CoreIssue
01-11-2007, 11:43 PM
Of course you’re quite correct. I do need to do a lot more study, and I recognise that my statement about RCC puts me at odds with the general acceptance of what defines dispensational pre-millennialism. My comment is based on the essay by Hoyt supporting dispensational premillennialism in the book I mentioned.(ed. R.G. Clouse)
Ah, but there are Pre-Mil doctrines that are not dispensational at all.
I am dispensational, but there are several forms of that as well.
Hoyt himself certainly notes the links of non pre-millennial perspectives with the Catholic Church.
“By spritualizing Scripture the church has been understood to be the totality of the kingdom. Passages such as Colossians 1:13 have been used to support this view. Roman Catholicism interpreted the visible hierarchy to be the Kingdom while Reformation theologians pointed to the invisible church”. (pp 69,70)
The key is the spiritualizing. That makes the doctrines impossible to prove and in disagreement with literal word meaning.
The Bible most assuredly says they are not revelation of private understanding, which spiritializing makes them.
What struck me however was his explanation of the ‘mediatorial kingdom’ where he makes the statements:
“The mediatorial kingdom belongs to members of the church in the sense that as the bride of Christ and the queen, she will rule and reign with Christ in this Kingdom” Heb. 12:28; Rev. 3:21. (p 74)
First, redefining it to be mediatorial is completely non-Biblical.
Second, the Church is not Christ's Queen. That is a RCC carry over, replacing Mary with Church.
Third, while the glorified Church does rule with Christ, the physical saints are Israel, not Church. A different covenant than Church and most assuredly a yet to be fulfilled one.
And that is a problem Amil cannot get around, among others.
and
“God exercises control over this Kingdom through a divinely chosen representative who speaks and acts for God with the people on the one hand and on the other represents the people to God”. (p 74)
Absolutely anti-Biblical. Again, the RCC theology influence is glaringly showing.
He totally dismisses Israel by replacing it with Church, which cannot be done Biblically.
Hoyt generates some ambiguity in his subsequent comment that “the mediator is always a member of the human race”(p74). I find it difficult however to recognise these claims as other than an appeal to papism.
Absolutely true.
There is NO such person allowed for, Biblically, other than Christ himself.
So there is potential to find Roman Catholics under the beds of both dispensationalists and amillennialists.
NO! That is a garbage statement.
Dispensationalists utterly reject this kind of thinking.
We have no use for Replacement Theology, a non-literal MK, a 'Pope' in any shape or form or spiritualizing prophecy.
The Trib is a literal 7 years yet to come. The MK is a literal 1,000 years, yet to come. Israel will be literally restored.
No room whatsoever for that absurd statement.
Much of the premillennialist case against other millennial views which I have come across emphasises a liberal/modernist/Roman Catholicist – [most curious company] - predilection for spiritualising scripture.
Because there is absolutely no way for them to arrive at Pre-Mil with spiritualizing to the max.
Invariably this is a technique leading to the denigrating of alternate understandings of Biblical revelation.
Deserved.
They have absolutely no way to prove their spiritualization other than propping up an new prophet or oracle that gives them the true spiritual meanings, a concept the Bible says is false.
The assumption - sometimes stated – is that ‘spiritualisation’ equates to a view that all prophetic references to Israel should now be interpreted as applying to the Christian Church.
Replacement Theology. Yep.
I do not claim that Israel as a nation is excluded from Biblical eschatology.
Semantical game playing.
Israel is more than just a nation, it is the restored Covenant Body during the Trib and MK. The Church Covenant Body is gone, physically speaking.
Temple is restored, priesthood is restored, Law is restored. The Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled, which is through Israel, not Gentiles.
I note also the clear recognition of the Church within OT prophecy.
Really? Where?
Acceptance of such should not condemn the holder of these views to bear the stain of ‘liberal scriptural indifference’.
Actually, yes. When one has to rely on rejecting the literal in favor or the spiritualized, it is deliberate to escape the literal.
Ladd, in his submission supporting ‘Historic Premillennialism’ gives praise to the work of B.B. Warfield who: [quote]“was the greatest exponent of a high view of Biblical inspiration of his day. He was prepared to accept any doctrine which could be proved which could be proved by the scriptures. If he ‘spiritualised’ the millennium, it was because he felt a total biblical hermeneutic required him to do so. This is not liberalism.” (p20)
Semantical double speak.
Use of symbolism in the Bible is not spiritualizing the Bible. For those symbols are also given literal meanings, thus making the represent literal contexts.
Spiritualizing is when one takes words that are not symbolic, have literal meanings, as written, and place non-literal figurative meanings upon them that have no foundation, evidence or reason other than the author's own mind and desires.
Despite Ladd’s acknowledgment that valid evangelical interpretation allows for justifiable spritualisation, his comments above are preceded by the statement: “The opposite to a literal hermeneutic of the Old Testament is a ‘spritualizing’ hermeneutic, that is a hermeneutic which finds the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the Christian Church.” (p19)
Semantical gameplaying where Israel = Church under the guise or progressive understanding.
A false, illogical and undefendable position.
The claimed Church prophecies do not exist in the OT.
It seems the term ‘spiritualisation’ carries much intellectual and cultural baggage. While the above definition limits its’ use to a context of OT prophecy and the Church, more general usage of the term seems to also encompass a liberal trait of scriptural re-interpretation and denial, as suits the personal preferences of the individual.
Bingo!
A third association to be made by the committed Christian and literalist will be the recognition of the heavenly states documented throughout the Bible. The different millennial interpretations all utilise different scriptural emphases and, I suspect, may in some cases ignore what other interpretations hold to be of utmost criticality. For myself I find difficulty recognising Hebrews 11 as other than an acceptable explanation of God’s promise to Abraham fulfilled.
Then he either is ignorant of the full Abrahamic Covenant or doesn't want to see it.
The land promise and such, via his descendents, have never been fulfilled.
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore. 13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
Which totally neglects the earthly portion of the Abrahamic Covenant. Spiritualized the Eternal to being the same as the earthly.
BOTH cities are promised, with the Eternal, on the New Earth, being the better.
As the Temple was stated to be a shadow of the Heavenly, the earthly MK kingdom, Jerusalem and such will be a shadow of the eternal.
The Ezekiel MK Temple is an earthly, not a Heavenly one. And there will be no Temple in the Eternal New Jerusalem, but there most assuredly is one in the MK Jerusalem.
ref:
The Meaning of The Millenium, Ed. R.G.Clouse 1977, Intervarsity Press
Replacement Theology is the old anti-Semitic and Church self glorification thinking of the RCC. As is Amil.
Rewards and similar wise, the Church probably is the height of God's blessings.
But that does not negate Israel will return, as Covenant people, to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant, the 70th Week of Daniel is the Trib of Revelation, the Second Coming is literal, the MK is literal and so on.
It is very well laid out in several OT books, Revelation and with scatterings in the rest of the NT.
It takes extreme denial and spiritualizing to escape those declarations.
Replacement Theology is the old anti-Semitic and Church self glorification thinking of the RCC. As is Amil.
But that does not negate Israel will return, as Covenant people, to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant, the 70th Week of Daniel is the Trib of Revelation, the Second Coming is literal, the MK is literal and so on.
The Nation of Israel, in the original Holy Land, causes much grief for the RCC's investment in Replacement Theology and amillennialism.
. . . probably one reason that the RCC didn't recognize Israel's right to exist until 1993, almost 10 years after Egypt did.
What is amillennialism?
Answer: The name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ is called amillennialism. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix "a" in amillennialism means "no" or "not." Hence, amillennialism means no millennium. However, in fairness to those who are amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at all. They just don't believe in a LITERAL millennium; a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth.
Where does the Bible say that Christ will literally reign for a thousand years on earth?
They instead believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present Church age is the kingdom over which it was written that the Christ would reign. There is no doubt that Christ now is sitting on a throne, but just because He is sitting on a throne does not mean that it is the throne of David.
1. Which throne is Christ sitting on?
2. What then is the throne of David in relation to the Davidic covenant, and where do modern believers fit in with this covenant?
There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet, just because He is ruling does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.
How many kingdoms does Christ have? What is the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23 etc) all about?
The prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally. Therefore, prophecies concerning Christ's second coming should also be expected to be fulfilled literally. For these reasons, an allegorical interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be rejected and a literal or normal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be adopted.
But is Christ's finished work of the cross unfulfilled prophecy? If He reigns already, why would He want to extend that kingdom to a corrupt earth? Especially as He has made a new one...:scratch:
Surely when we study the kingdom of God, we should be looking at the nature of the kingdom which Jesus was preaching about.
Matt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Matt 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Acts 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
What was this kingdom that Jesus was preaching about? Was it relevant to the listeners in his day (as well as for us) or was he referring to some future reign?
This is important. If Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, we need to understand the nature of his teaching, and indeed the very nature of the kingdom. It simply will not do to take the words of Jesus and privately interpret them to mean something contrary to what scripture teaches. Jesus repeatedly refers to the gospel of the kingdom, but where does he indicate that this is some future earthly kingdom? I do not see that he does. Let us look at the nature of God’s kingdom;
Matt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
In this verse, thekingdom of God is mentioned alongside righteousness, the two are synonymous. We are not to await righteousness in some future reign of Christ, since Christ is our righteousness already (1 Cor 1:30). Furthermore, this righteousness is by faith, so clearly the kingdom of God in this passage refers to a spiritual kingdom, which is perceived through the eyes of faith;
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
(see also Rom 10:6, Php 3:9, 2 Pet 1:1)
Another verse pertaining to the kingdom of God refers to the fruit of the kingdom;
Matt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Jesus is teaching the parable of the vineyard (verses 33-43) in reference to the husbandmen (Jews), his servants (in reference to the prophets), and the son (in reference to himself as the rejected Messiah), so what was the fruit?
Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
The kingdom is true faith in God, and the fruit of it is repentance. In order to manifest the fruit of the spirit, we must have faith in God, and this will always bring repentance; first unto salvation, then unto growth and sanctification. It is all about faith. Jesus was preaching a gospel of faith. Mark 1:15 states the message in its simplest form;
Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Here we see that the gospel of the kingdom of God is a matter of repentance and faith. Jesus states that the kingdom of God is at hand, not sometime in the future, and the nature of repentance and faith are spiritual. They are both gifts from God (2 Tim 2:25, Acts 11:18, Eph 2:8).
Another passage that shows the relationship of faith and the kingdom of God is in Mark 10;
Mark 10:14,15 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
This is a clear reference to the childlike and simple faith required to inherit the kingdom of God. Again, this is a spiritual reference, not a reference to some future earthly reign. The kingdom of God is a matter of faith. The ‘mystery’ of the kingdom is that it can only be perceived with the eyes of faith. It is a mystery to those who attempt to see it any other way;
Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
In Luke 8, we have the parable of the sower, and there is a reference to the ‘glad tidings’ (good news) of the kingdom of God preceding this teaching.
Luke 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
Again, the good news cannot be referring to some future earthly reign, as not only was it being preached, but it was being demonstrated at that time; “preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God” (see also Matt 12:28)
I have been studying this openly and honnestly, and I cannot see this 'millennial kingdom' preached anywhere by Christ or the apostles...to my mind this is error.
amilltruth
03-30-2007, 01:29 PM
Where does the Bible say that Christ will literally reign for a thousand years on earth?
your right edge the bible NOWHERE mentions am earthly reign on earth, isnt it amazin if Jesus was going to reign over the jews on an earthly throne over the city he called sodom and egypt in Rev. he would have somewhere spoke of it? he didnt, I wonder why???
1. Which throne is Christ sitting on?
2. What then is the throne of David in relation to the Davidic covenant, and where do modern believers fit in with this covenant?
Christ is NOW sitting on davids throne that was given to him at birth (Luke 1:32), and at his ascension he rose to sit on that throne (Acts 2:29-31).
If Jesus is sitting on the throne at the right hand of the Father, with ALL AUTHORITY NOW, why would he leave it to come sit on an earthly throne in sodom?
reading everything in the bible hyper-literally will lead to much confusion,
does the antichrist really have 7 heads?
does water literally flow out of Jesus' literal body?
the problem the pharasees had with Jesus is they interpreted all prophecies of Messiah literally, and when JESUS didnt fulfill them the way they thought he should have they killed him.
when Nicodemus came to Jesus by night to enqire about eternal life why didnt he understand what Jesus told him??????
BECAUSE HE WAS TAKING WHAT HE SAID LITERALLY!!!!!!
(how can a man be born a second time?)
when the OT testament makes a prophecy and the NT fulfills it in a spiritual way, (i.e. rebuilding of the tabernacle of David) we can then know how the prohecy was to be interpreted.
How many kingdoms does Christ have? What is the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23 etc) all about?
ONE KINGDOM! was there 4 different crucifixions???? each gospel says there was something different written on the inscription over Jesus, taking the dispys LITERAL APPROACH TO EVERYTHING wecan thereby conclude Jesus was crucified 4 times? see how nonsensical that can lead to?
Yes Amilltruth,
what you say makes sense to me. One kingdom. :tiphat:
CoreIssue
03-30-2007, 07:24 PM
Yes Amilltruth,
what you say makes sense to me. One kingdom. :tiphat:
There isn't one single kingdom talked about in the Bible.
There is the physical kingdom of Israel, for which Christ is physical king.
There is the spiritual kingdom, for which Christ is the King and Savior.
There is the Kingdom of God, which includes the Kingdom of Christ and Israel. Angels are NOT part of the Kingdom of Christ, in example.
You are not seeing all talked about in the Bible.
Hi CoreIssue
There isn't one single kingdom talked about in the Bible.
There is the physical kingdom of Israel, for which Christ is physical king.
There is the spiritual kingdom, for which Christ is the King and Savior.
There is the Kingdom of God, which includes the Kingdom of Christ and Israel. Angels are NOT part of the Kingdom of Christ, in example.
You are not seeing all talked about in the Bible.
Are you saying that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are two different kingdoms?
CoreIssue
03-31-2007, 11:10 AM
The Kingdom of Christ is Christ and his saints.
The Kingdom of Christ is part of the Kingdom of Heaven.
And both are part of the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God encompasses all.
Think of the US. A county is a unique area, but is part of the state, which is a unique area, all of which is part of the US, which is a unique area.
Angels are part of the Kingdom of Heaven, and thus part of the Kingdom of God. But they are not part of the Kingdom of Christ.
It is a failure of understanding about kingdoms which is part of the failure of Amils to get it right.
Just as you have seen the attempts here to equate resurrection and being born-again. They are two distinct issues.
Hi there CoreIssue,
The Kingdom of Christ is Christ and his saints.
The Kingdom of Christ is part of the Kingdom of Heaven.
And both are part of the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God encompasses all.
Think of the US. A county is a unique area, but is part of the state, which is a unique area, all of which is part of the US, which is a unique area.
Angels are part of the Kingdom of Heaven, and thus part of the Kingdom of God. But they are not part of the Kingdom of Christ.
It is a failure of understanding about kingdoms which is part of the failure of Amils to get it right.
Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't answer my question really. I'll put it another way.
1. What is the nature of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it of a spiritual nature, or a literal one?
2. What kingdom was Christ preaching about in the gospels? A spiritual kingdom, or a literal reign on the earth?
As I read it (without any eschatalogical view to cloud it), it seems clear enough...
"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." With these words, John the Baptist preached to the nation of Israel in order to prepare the way for the Messiah. Matthew tells us, in the next chapter of his gospel, that Jesus went forth proclaiming the identical message: "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (4:17).
Again, in chapter 10:7, when Jesus sends out the twelve, he tells them that the message they are to preach is the same: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." The synoptic gospels are full of teaching about the kingdom of God. It was a central theme in the earthly ministry of Jesus. But, not only in the gospels. In the interval between His resurrection and ascension, Luke tells us that our Savior was with his disciples over a period of forty days "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3).
The words at the beginning of the Great Commission, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" point to this truth. Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost follows this same theme: Jesus, having been raised up, has been "exalted to the right hand of God." He said, "let all the house of Israel assuredly know that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (2:36)
This is the language of the kingdom of God.
Just as you have seen the attempts here to equate resurrection and being born-again. They are two distinct issues.
Are you suggesting that the saint is not crucified with Christ, and resurrected into newness of life through faith?
CoreIssue
03-31-2007, 01:55 PM
Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't answer my question really. I'll put it another way.
1. What is the nature of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it of a spiritual nature, or a literal one?
Both. Part completed now, part at the First Resurrection and finished in Eternity.
2. What kingdom was Christ preaching about in the gospels? A spiritual kingdom, or a literal reign on the earth?
The verses reflects the coming.
What makes you think it comes in a completed form?
Greek and, especially, Hebrew speak of things so sure in language forms as if complete before they happen. Such as the Jesus, who is spoken of as being created before the foundations of the earth, but in reality, the flesh was not created until Mary, this Jesus did not exist, in fact, until then.
Same with the Kingdom. To come does not mean to come complete.
Yep, it is coming, and will be coming until Eternity.
We, as residents, are spiritually complete upon repentence. But not physically complete until resurrected and our homes are not permanent until the New Earth.
Christ will physically bring the Kingdom to the Earth in the MK.
Then he will remove it for the Short Time of Satan.
On the New Earth, the completed Kingdom will be there for Eternity. There God will be with us both in actual indwelling and resident presence.
Think about it. The Amil thinking on Kingdom has no way of dealing with the physical realities.
Just as you have seen the attempts here to equate resurrection and being born-again. They are two distinct issues.
Are you suggesting that the saint is not crucified with Christ, and resurrected into newness of life through faith?
[/quote]
I am stating you are misusing the term resurrected.
To resurrect is bring the body back to life or to give it new life. That does not happen until the resurrection.
We entered the grave with Christ and rose with him, spiritually. That is being born-again at repentence.
Our bodies are never called born-again, since it is our spirits that are judged, not our flesh.
Forgiveness is a spiritual thing. Our flesh is nothing more than vessels.
But you are misusing the word resurrected.
Ltanner09
04-04-2007, 04:44 AM
1. What is the nature of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it of a spiritual nature, or a literal one?
2. What kingdom was Christ preaching about in the gospels? A spiritual kingdom, or a literal reign on the earth?
As I read it (without any eschatalogical view to cloud it), it seems clear enough...
Edge, the questions you are asking are very good ones.
Christ spent His entire ministry teaching how to enter His kingdom. He taught that is wasn't of this world and from henceforth it wasn't from here, but another place.
Christ took the kingdom from the Jews and gave it to another nation, all of whom are in Him.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
1 COR 15 very plainly shows that Christ, at the 2nd coming, delivers the kingdom up to the Father:
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
The reign of Christ was to be from the right hand of the Father; until His enemies are made His footstool:
Ps 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
Pre mill places the reign of Christ from the footstool, not the throne.
Ltanner09
04-04-2007, 10:19 AM
From post #13, by Sid:
Amillennialism is mostly known by what it denies:
There isn't going to be a literal millennium kingdom,
There isn't going to be a Great Tribulation
The Bible isn't literally true.
The Church has replaced Israel.
Satan is Bound
There won't be a rapture.
Apparently Sid has set hiimself up as an amill expert, even though his understanding of amill is faulty.
But the moderators here are obviously allowing the lies to further their doctrine.
Says a lot about the credibility of this site.
Lie#1 There isn't going to be a literal millennium kingdom,
Amill believes the kingdom is a literal kingdom, but not an earthly one.
Lie #2 There isn't going to be a Great Tribulation
That's pre mill's/pre trib's belief. They teach believers will magically escape the tribulation.
Not only IS there going to be great tribulation, the church will be in it.
Lie #3-The Bible isn't literally true.
Another blatant lie, allowed to stand by the Moderators here, without even a correction.
Lie #4The Church has replaced Israel.
All in Christ (the church) are Israel. That isn't replacing anyone, that's an inclusion of Gentiles into the body.
#5, Satan is Bound
Amills belief comes from scripture. Jesus taught He bound the strong man.
Pre mill disregards the clear scripture showing that fact and has Satan bound somewhere in the future.
Mt 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Lie #6-There won't be a rapture.
Amill believes the rapture is post trib.
Unfortunately Christian Talk Zone needs to depend on spreading false information and allowing their members to accept these claims as truth.
You have to wonder why the amill belief isn't presented in a factual form on this site and allow the members here to make accurate decisions on their own.
Sad....if one lie goes inchallenged how many others aren't?
If one lie is accepted as truth on this site how many others are?
Hope any member here, that desires to know the truth, decides to study on their own and get facts ion differing views, instead of fables presented here.
amilltruth
04-04-2007, 11:28 AM
amen len, couldnt have said it any better.
InTheWind
04-04-2007, 11:53 AM
Apparently Sid has set hiimself up as an amill expert, even though his understanding of amill is faulty.
But the moderators here are obviously allowing the lies to further their doctrine.
Says a lot about the credibility of this site.
Warning, uncalled for, the mods here haven`t said anything against your view that i know of.
amilltruth
04-04-2007, 12:06 PM
other than calling it heresy?
amilltruth
04-04-2007, 12:08 PM
to everyone else reading,
you see how it works?
you present biblical evidence supporting your claim and poof you get warned!
amilltruth
04-04-2007, 12:14 PM
So INTHEWIND, are you saying that its not a lie to KNOW what a doctrine teaches, and then post something that you know is false against that doctrine?
If Sid started this thread with the name he called, which is being shown to be a lie, pure and simple, and you allow it, what is out of line bringing that to someones attention?
and you cant be serious that the moderator CoreIssue has said NOTHING against amill can you?
InTheWind
04-04-2007, 12:46 PM
Nobody is against anyone, but if you can`t debate without getting mad this debate will be over.
My point to you was that no mods posted anything against your view, CoreIssue isn`t a mod he`s a Admid.
amilltruth
04-04-2007, 01:17 PM
ok so lets get back to topic then, what was the topic?
amillennialism=bad theology, thats right.
since Ltanner so clearly laid out what Amillennialism TRULY believes above, now CoreIssue we can truly start talking about it, since we have clearly stated what an amillennialist believes.
can you biblically refute this?
CoreIssue
04-04-2007, 02:49 PM
The issue is not disagreeing. The issue is the ease you guys accuse of lying.
CoreIssue
04-04-2007, 02:52 PM
So INTHEWIND, are you saying that its not a lie to KNOW what a doctrine teaches, and then post something that you know is false against that doctrine?
If Sid started this thread with the name he called, which is being shown to be a lie, pure and simple, and you allow it, what is out of line bringing that to someones attention?
and you cant be serious that the moderator CoreIssue has said NOTHING against amill can you?
It is not a lie to call a wrong doctrine false.
And we cannot help it if you do not define Amil correctly.
What I have against Amil is that it is false. You guys totally turn a blind eye to anything that refutes you. You will not get out of your Shopping Cart verses that you spin to false meanings.
Deal with what has been posted on the literally stated words and word meanings. You don't.
CoreIssue
04-04-2007, 02:54 PM
ok so lets get back to topic then, what was the topic?
amillennialism=bad theology, thats right.
since Ltanner so clearly laid out what Amillennialism TRULY believes above, now CoreIssue we can truly start talking about it, since we have clearly stated what an amillennialist believes.
can you biblically refute this?
A definition has been posted that does not meet the theology one.
Now, how about you getting off of that issue, because we are not going to disagree and deal with the verses that refute you.
Your constant strawman arguments, to distract from such as Zech. and Iaiah, show you are totally lacking in answers to those passages.
Ltanner09
04-04-2007, 10:02 PM
Ah yes, the simple solution of this site....turn your heads and allow the lies about other beliefs to go unchallenged....then start the warnings and eventual banning against those who bring it to your attention.
Sounds like an exit strategy in the making.
CoreIssue
04-04-2007, 10:19 PM
What do you accuse people of lying so easily? As do all who blind themselves with false doctrine.
Get off the personal attacks and try dealing with the issues.
You just refuse to address Zech and Isaiah beyond making one quick statement and then jumping elsewhere.
They tell you there will be a Temple, will be laws, will be death, will be birth, will be building, will be sin, will be offerings, will be sacrficies.
All the attempts at trying to get around those clear statements does not work.
Grabbing NT verses and forcing unsaid meanings on them is not an answer.
We are told, by the Bible, that the Church Age is not to the end of time. We are told Israel will be restored. We are never told being born-again MUST occur, in all covenants, a the time of repentence.
Sure didn't happen in the OT. And clearly will not happen in the MK.
We are told in the MK the earth will be remade, refreshed, remodeled, etc. We are not told it will be replced by a totally new one, as it will be in Eternity.
You have to be able to harmonize ALL the issues, not just the ones you want and then dismiss or spiritualize the meanings of everything else.
The New Covenant of Hebrews is stated to be future, not present tense. It is to the Houses of Israel and Judah, not Gentiles.
So many clear statements that reject Replacement Theology and Amillennialism.
CoreIssue
04-04-2007, 10:23 PM
And yes, pushing Admin and Mods to ban one is an escape mechanism. An effort to get thrown off so one can avoid answering refutations and questions and an excuse to point fingers at the 'bad people' who did it.
How about just dealing with the verses you were asked to address. Surely you can go through them and explain their meaning, proving your claims, as you go.
But it is impossible to do when you spiritualize it all, isn't it?
Ltanner09
04-04-2007, 10:48 PM
Core, do i need to start another thread where the questions asked to you have gone unanswered?
You claim I haven't addressed Isa.
Here's 2 verses from Isa and please explain how they were fulfilled "literally".
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
THis question has been asked of you several times.
Are the above verses to be spiritualized?
amilltruth
04-04-2007, 10:49 PM
So INTHEWIND, are you saying that its not a lie to KNOW what a doctrine teaches, and then post something that you know is false against that doctrine?
If Sid started this thread with the name he called, which is being shown to be a lie, pure and simple, and you allow it, what is out of line bringing that to someones attention?
and you cant be serious that the moderator CoreIssue has said NOTHING against amill can you?
It is not a lie to call a wrong doctrine false.
And we cannot help it if you do not define Amil correctly.
What I have against Amil is that it is false. You guys totally turn a blind eye to anything that refutes you. You will not get out of your Shopping Cart verses that you spin to false meanings.
Deal with what has been posted on the literally stated words and word meanings. You don't.
and core, you have been shown that your LITERAL-only approach is nonsense! as you will not adress the issue of how Isa 40:3-4 is fulfilled LITERALLY!!!!
so far you have given us a spiritual fulfillment, even though you dont call it that of course, but thats what it is, so try again there my friend.
amilltruth
04-04-2007, 10:51 PM
and you are just not calling a doctrine false, you are falsely accusing a doctrine!
you dont understand that with all your "rule of grammer" nonsense you speak?
If I know pretrib teaches a rapture before the second coming, and then turn around and state you dont believe in the second coming, AM I LYING?
CoreIssue
04-04-2007, 11:10 PM
Core, do i need to start another thread where the questions asked to you have gone unanswered?
You claim I haven't addressed Isa.
Here's 2 verses from Isa and please explain how they were fulfilled "literally".
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
THis question has been asked of you several times.
Are the above verses to be spiritualized?
Dodge, dodge dodge the Zech and Isaiah passages posted to you.
One note posting on on small statement, which you attempt to spin into some amazing refutation, is getting you no where.
Actually eplain the passage posted to you that refute you with statements that cannot disputed.
amilltruth
04-05-2007, 12:58 AM
coreissue, what you are refusing to see is the verses in Isa are very clearly placed inside the NHNE, (Isa 65:17), you dont just get to make things up to fit your twisted theology, the New Heaven and New Earth clearly come in Rev 21:1, but yet you wont place it there.
so tell us CORE, where does this LITERALLY say "refreshed"?
"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come to mind" Isa. 65:17
are you claiming this is not the same New Heaven and New Earth that is mentioned here?
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; FOR THE "FIRST" heaven and the "first" earth were passed away, and there was no more sea"
Rev 21:1
And you claim amills are mixed up?
amilltruth
04-05-2007, 01:01 AM
lets see if you can answer these simple questions, or will you do your usual move here?
CoreIssue
04-05-2007, 10:19 PM
When I started reading it seemed that pre-millennialism held the most promise, but I was turned off intensely by the dispensational perspective, which despite some of the comments in this thread, appears to have a closer heritage with Roman Catholicism that the other views.
With respect, Catholicism is Amil and the creator of this theology.
You do need to study up on this issue a lot more if you see any Pre-Mill thinking as Catholic. Nothing could be farther from the truth in this area.
amilltruth
04-06-2007, 12:28 AM
When I started reading it seemed that pre-millennialism held the most promise, but I was turned off intensely by the dispensational perspective, which despite some of the comments in this thread, appears to have a closer heritage with Roman Catholicism that the other views.
With respect, Catholicism is Amil and the creator of this theology.
You do need to study up on this issue a lot more if you see any Pre-Mill thinking as Catholic. Nothing could be farther from the truth in this area.
who are you addresing this too, core?????
amilltruth
04-06-2007, 12:29 AM
AND YES IT WAS THE USUAL MOVE,
DUCK, DODGE, SWERVE GET OUT OF THE WAY,
DIRECT ATTENTION SOMEWHERE ELSE..
ANYTHING EXCEPT ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!
come on core you can do it....
I think CoreIssue already told you about all caps.
. . . I'm telling you again.
You are apparently a slow learner.
What is amillennialism?
Answer: The name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ is called amillennialism. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix "a" in amillennialism means "no" or "not." Hence, amillennialism means no millennium. However, in fairness to those who are amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at all. They just don't believe in a LITERAL millennium; a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth.
They instead believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present Church age is the kingdom over which it was written that the Christ would reign. There is no doubt that Christ now is sitting on a throne, but just because He is sitting on a throne does not mean that it is the throne of David. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet, just because He is ruling does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.
The prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally. Therefore, prophecies concerning Christ's second coming should also be expected to be fulfilled literally. For these reasons, an allegorical interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be rejected and a literal or normal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be adopted.
What is amillennialism?
I am new here and I am mostly interested in this type of discussion, so I began with the correct answer to what Amillennialis is and not an answer mixed with what Sid thinks an Amiller should believe.
Answer:
The Amillennialist believes that the Coming of the Lord will be visible, physical, literal and final. Christ's appearing will usher in the end of the age, the beginning of eternity and time shall be no more. It will be the final and eternal separation of the righteous and the wicked and we will see the introduction of the new heaven and earth.
We believe the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 is symbolic of the entire span of time between the cross and his return. At the first advent of Christ Satan was bound by Christ's victory over him. The effect of this victory continues due to the presence of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel. It is through the teaching and subsequent spread of the gospel that Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations. Christ is presently reigning in heaven and will continue to do so until His return. At the end of this age, great apostasy occurs, Satan is released, Jesus Christ returns in final judgment for all people, the general resurrection occurs, and he establishes a new heaven and earth.
In Jesus
1. Amillennialism fosters no literal interpretation of scripture, even though Old Testament verses quoted in the New Testament were taken literally by New Testament authors, and Jesus Christ Himself.
Please give me a few examples so that I may respond to each.
2. Amillennialism equates the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven and the church. This permits misapplication of doctrinal passages. For example, if the Kingdom of Heaven is synonymous with the church, then it would be possible for a saved person to be “cast out into outer darkness” (Matt. 8:12).
Matthew 8:12 (context Matt. 8:5-13)
Jesus was amazed at the faith this Roman Centurion had and He said, “I tell you the truth,21 I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel!"
This man had a level of faith that eclipsed and shamed the level of faith the Jews themselves had. Now consider this, because the Jews were God's chosen people throughout the OT era and the gentiles had absolutely no standing. This man was a Roman, a Gentile. You certainly would have expected the Jew to be have more faith in just one of them then the Roman did, but Jesus there was not faith like his throughout Israel.
So from here we need to get to the true meaning of the verse you have given. Jesus took this opportunity to make a prediction. The prediction is actually that many other Gentiles are going to come to faith, just as this Roman did, and would put to shame many Jews who did not have faith.
So Jesus goes on to say, "I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,"
This is Jesus telling us that many Gentiles will come from all over the world and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. That means they will enter the Kingdom. This is being fulfilled even now. Certainly we know that there are more Gentiles then Jews in the Kingdom of Heaven?
But Jesus then says that the sons of the kingdom will be cast out. These sons are those born into the natural inheritance, the Jews, the natural born members of God, but many will be rejected. Why will they be rejected? Becaues they did not have Faith.
Therefore your understanding of this passage is flwed in that it refers to the natural born inheritors of the kingdom who lost it because of no faith and the inclusion of the gentile who has come to Christ through Faith.
This is why Paul in Romans is so right when he says not all who are Israel are not of Israel. It is the same meaning as this of Matthew 8:12
3. Amillennialism teaches that the current age is the Millennial age. But the characteristics of the Millennium (Satan bound, no curse, no devils, absolute peace, longevity of life, ect.) are not in effect today.
Well, of course that is your veiw but an amil believer who is a student of the Bible can easily disprove you on this.
4. Amillennialism also alleges that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, like Eph. 2:1,2. Once the literal, bodily resurrection is done away with, who is to say that Jesus Christ rose bodily? [See the readings in the NWT and NASB that deny the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:51,52.]
Well lets see, I believe there were over 500 people who saw the resurrected Lord before His ascension. Is that your best arguement against a spiritual resurrection?
eahaddix
04-07-2007, 08:54 AM
4. Amillennialism also alleges that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, like Eph. 2:1,2. Once the literal, bodily resurrection is done away with, who is to say that Jesus Christ rose bodily? [See the readings in the NWT and NASB that deny the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:51,52.]
Well lets see, I believe there were over 500 people who saw the resurrected Lord before His ascension. Is that your best arguement against a spiritual resurrection?
You are trying to erect a strawman by "putting words in other peoples' mouths." However, contrary to your presumptuous presupposition, Biblical Scripture clearly teaches a bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus, not a "spiritual resurrection" of Christ Jesus.
After Christ Jesus's raising and resurrection (Luke 24:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:1-7;&version=31;), John 20:1-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:1-18;&version=31;)), Jesus appeared to his disciples (Luke 24:36-49 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:36-49;&version=31;), John 20:24-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-29;&version=31;)).
Luke 24 [NIV] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:36-43;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Luke+24%3A36-43§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151). 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) does not have flesh (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561) and bones (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3747), as you see I (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1691) have (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2192)."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
John 20 [NIV] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-29;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=John+20%3A24-29§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846) side (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4125), I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3450) side (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4125). Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
When Christ Jesus appeared to his disciples, the disciples thought that Jesus was a ghost (Luke 24:37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:37;&version=31;)). However, Christ Jesus states that he possessed flesh and bones (Luke 24:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:39;&version=31;)), as evidenced by his bodily presence (Luke 24:39-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:39-40;&version=31;)), his bodily markings (John 20:25, 27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:25,%2027;&version=31;)), and his physical consumption of food (Luke 24:41-42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:41-42;&version=31;)).
Moreover, Christ Jesus is our high priest (Hebrews 6:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:20;&version=31;), Hebrews 4:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:14;&version=31;), Hebrews 3:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:1;&version=31;), etc.), which is an office reserved for a man (Hebrews 5:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205:1-6;&version=31;)). As our heavenly high priest (Hebrews 8:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208:1-2%20;&version=31;)), he presented his substitutional[1] sacrifical[2] death[3] to God the Father directly for our atonement (Hebrews 9:24-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:24-28;&version=31;)) and continually acts as our advocate (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3875) (1 John 2:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:1;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=1+John+2%3A1§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)). However, how can Christ Jesus still be God incarnate as man (ref. John 1:1-2, 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-2,%2014;&version=31;), Galatians 4:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%204:4;&version=31;)) and our high priest, if one separates his divinity (ref. Colossians 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:9;&version=31;)) from his humanity (ref. Hebrews 2:14-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:14-18;&version=31;), Hebrews 4:14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:14-15;&version=31;)) during his raising and resurrection?
Quite simply, Paul tells us that our perishable worldly bodies will be changed into imperishable spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 50-55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:42-44,%2050-55;&version=31;)), in accordance with how Christ Jesus received an imperishable body (1 Corinthians 15:20-26, 47-49 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:20-26,%2047-49;&version=31;), i.e. John 20:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:26;&version=31;)). So neither Christ Jesus nor his saints "shed" their physical body, but rather their bodies will be transformed into different types of physical bodies (ref. 1 Corinthians 15:35-42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:35-42;&version=31;)).
1. Amillennialism fosters no literal interpretation of scripture, even though Old Testament verses quoted in the New Testament were taken literally by New Testament authors, and Jesus Christ Himself.
Please give me a few examples so that I may respond to each.
Well, as a general example of disregarding Biblical Scripture's literal parts, you reject the bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus despite the fact that Biblical Scripture clearly teaches this reality (i.e. Psalm 16:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2016:9-10%20;&version=31;), cross ref. Acts 2:22-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:22-28%20;&version=31;), Acts 13:32-35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:32-35;&version=31;)), as I demonstrated immediately above.
Footnotes:
[1] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:21;&version=31;), 1 Peter 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:24;&version=31;), Galatians 3:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:13;&version=31;), Galatians 2:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:20;&version=31;), etc.
[2] Hebrews 10:10-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:10-14;&version=31;), Hebrews 9:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:27-28;&version=31;), 1 Peter 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18;&version=31;), 1 John 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:2;&version=31;), etc.
[3] 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:3-8;&version=31;), etc., cross ref. Hebrews 9:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:22;&version=31;), John 6:53-57 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:53-57;&version=31;).
CoreIssue
04-07-2007, 09:16 AM
What is amillennialism?
Answer: The name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ is called amillennialism. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix "a" in amillennialism means "no" or "not." Hence, amillennialism means no millennium. However, in fairness to those who are amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at all. They just don't believe in a LITERAL millennium; a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth.
They instead believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present Church age is the kingdom over which it was written that the Christ would reign. There is no doubt that Christ now is sitting on a throne, but just because He is sitting on a throne does not mean that it is the throne of David. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet, just because He is ruling does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.
The prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally. Therefore, prophecies concerning Christ's second coming should also be expected to be fulfilled literally. For these reasons, an allegorical interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be rejected and a literal or normal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be adopted.
What is amillennialism?
I am new here and I am mostly interested in this type of discussion, so I began with the correct answer to what Amillennialis is and not an answer mixed with what Sid thinks an Amiller should believe.
Answer:
The Amillennialist believes that the Coming of the Lord will be visible, physical, literal and final. Christ's appearing will usher in the end of the age, the beginning of eternity and time shall be no more. It will be the final and eternal separation of the righteous and the wicked and we will see the introduction of the new heaven and earth.
We believe the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 is symbolic of the entire span of time between the cross and his return. At the first advent of Christ Satan was bound by Christ's victory over him. The effect of this victory continues due to the presence of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel. It is through the teaching and subsequent spread of the gospel that Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations. Christ is presently reigning in heaven and will continue to do so until His return. At the end of this age, great apostasy occurs, Satan is released, Jesus Christ returns in final judgment for all people, the general resurrection occurs, and he establishes a new heaven and earth.
In Jesus
Hi WFTD,
That is indeed part of definiton.
But Amil also embraces Replacement Theology, meaning Church is no Israel, covenant wise.
They reject a Rapture, where the Church is removed from the earth. In Amil the Church remains.
They reject this earth is utterly destroyed and replaced by a completely new earth.
And some other key issues.
The issue of Replacement Theology is a big one. Without it Amils would be forced to drop the spiritualization of the MK into Heaven and not physically on the earth.
4. Amillennialism also alleges that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, like Eph. 2:1,2. Once the literal, bodily resurrection is done away with, who is to say that Jesus Christ rose bodily? [See the readings in the NWT and NASB that deny the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ in Luke 24:51,52.]
Well lets see, I believe there were over 500 people who saw the resurrected Lord before His ascension. Is that your best arguement against a spiritual resurrection?
You are trying to erect a strawman by "putting words in other peoples' mouths." However, contrary to your presumptuous presupposition, Biblical Scripture clearly teaches a bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus, not a "spiritual resurrection" of Christ Jesus.
After Christ Jesus's raising and resurrection (Luke 24:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:1-7;&version=31;), John 20:1-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:1-18;&version=31;)), Jesus appeared to his disciples (Luke 24:36-49 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:36-49;&version=31;), John 20:24-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-29;&version=31;)).
Luke 24 [NIV] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:36-43;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Luke+24%3A36-43§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151). 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) does not have flesh (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561) and bones (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3747), as you see I (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1691) have (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2192)."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
John 20 [NIV] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-29;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=John+20%3A24-29§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846) side (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4125), I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3450) side (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4125). Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
When Christ Jesus appeared to his disciples, the disciples thought that Jesus was a ghost (Luke 24:37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:37;&version=31;)). However, Christ Jesus states that he possessed flesh and bones (Luke 24:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:39;&version=31;)), as evidenced by his bodily presence (Luke 24:39-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:39-40;&version=31;)), his bodily markings (John 20:25, 27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:25,%2027;&version=31;)), and his physical consumption of food (Luke 24:41-42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:41-42;&version=31;)).
Moreover, Christ Jesus is our high priest (Hebrews 6:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:20;&version=31;), Hebrews 4:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:14;&version=31;), Hebrews 3:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:1;&version=31;), etc.), which is an office reserved for a man (Hebrews 5:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205:1-6;&version=31;)). As our heavenly high priest (Hebrews 8:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208:1-2%20;&version=31;)), he presented his substi