A problem with premillennialism

[jeremiah1five]

I'm beginning to think you should get to know the real Jesus.

You are stumbling over a stumbling stone.

Nah. But next time you ask me a question I won't answer because you're really not interested in understanding, and this defeats the purpose of honest interchange.

 

[Musicmaster]

You are debating with an amill. Therefore, you can't make an argument against that belief without taking it into consideration. If you say that their position has Christians facing the wrath of God ---that would only be the case if they also believed what you do about the seven year tribulation and your overall interpretation of Rev. But they don't. It is a non defense of your position and does not refute theirs. It is just statements being made.

Actually, I was Amill myself, as taught by Hanagraaf and other authors to whom he pointed along the Amill dogmas, and it just didn't set right with what I read in scripture with verses in context and in a systematic study, and his presentations utilized scripture being allegorized so much, with which I simply wasn't comfortable.

I gave scriptures to support my position in the original post that you did not respond to but rather responded "at", and to someone else, and very little of it. The way to have a discussion would be to give what you consider a proper interpretation of those scriptures, and not with just opinion but exegeted as I did in post #381. And do so matching point by point with your rebuttal. Anything else is just a meaningless argument.

I realize you believe that you offered proper reasoning in that post, but this is as much assumption as anything of which you have accused others:

"There is a resurrection of the dead in Christ, and a glorification of those who remain alive. Paul is speaking of the coming of the Lord---His return. These resurrected dead and those who are alive, meet Him in the air, and will always be with HIm, as He is descending.
When that is put together with 1 Cor 15 the entire chapter, but for the sake of space, I will quote 50-55"

You assume that it is the Second Coming, and yet those verses do not show His Feet touching down upon this earth as you seem to assume INTO the text. Responding to that, in my estimation, was not at all worthwhile since pointing out the silence from which you are arguing is just that...silence. You're entrenched yourself, and nothing will move you, so why try? The same went for the rest of that post...with you not representing both sides to show which one had more credibility.

So, while you subjectively give yourself five stars for your presentation, the conviction is only in your mind, not the minds of all others in here.

My contention is that if the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead in glorified immortal bodies, and those who remain alive, are glorified, where is there any biblical support of a literal thousand year reign of Christ ---which means He returned---in and over a temporal, even sinful, people, marrying and giving in marriage---when Jesus says they will not? You really need to read the post again so you know my position and how I arrived at it. Unless you just want to argue, but you will have to do it with someone else.

Yes.

I too say yes, in that this is what you believe, and that's fine. If we're in the millennium right now, the entirety of which venomous critters have remained venomous throughout, with lions eating lambs, that framework collapses under its own weight after having allegorized into oblivion those passages pertaining to venom and carnivore animals, not to mention many others that I saw as problematic. Yep, I was there once in my belief system, and have since walked away from it because of what I saw as corrupting the scriptures on the basis of nothing solid and convincing enough to hold my loyalties to it.

It still remains true that if you had sought Holy Spirit for truth, and I have sought Holy Spirit for truth, and yet we don't see eye to eye, one or both of us is dead wrong, and have not truly sought Holy Spirit to the extent we both think, or at least one of us. So, one or both if us is a liar!

MM

 

[Arial]

Yes we were discussing it. Do you have a problem with that?

No. Gosh people are touchy.

 

[Arial]

Actually, I was Amill myself, as taught by Hanagraaf and other authors to whom he pointed along the Amill dogmas, and it just didn't set right with what I read in scripture with verses in context and in a systematic study, and his presentations utilized scripture being allegorized so much, with which I simply wasn't comfortable.

Well, I have no idea what he taught. And I don't care. But there is more than one amil view. I don't know if he allegorized or not or if you are still confusing allegory with finding the biblical meaning behind the symbols, figurative language, and apocalyptic language, in Revelation (and other such writings in the Bible, particularly the prophets) from the Bible itself. It has to be interpreted, like all else, biblical and secular, according to the type of genre it is. We don't interpret poetry as though it were history. We don't interpret a text book as though it were poetry etc.

I realize you believe that you offered proper reasoning in that post, but this is as much assumption as anything of which you have accused others:

I was not offering "proper reasoning" but proper exegesis, though summarized for the sake of space. There was no assumption in it, unless you can show me the assumptions. Be my guest, though I realize that is not your purpose or intent. We are having the opposite of a discussion. The opposite of exploring differing ideas. I am trying, but I can get no cooperation. What else is new? You seem to think I am doing the same thing as you. Declare opinion as truth and fight tooth and nail against any opposition. And with the idea of "proving your point" and persuading me to say, I guess, "Oh I see! You were right all along!" Well, I am not. I am am/was attempting to examine the scriptures. Not put forth the things to examine only to have them not examined, but only ridiculed and those, including myself, who would dare hold them.

So where is your exegesis of the scriptures given? Where is your exegesis of anything? ANd why do you consider asking questions (that never get answered) accusatory?

"There is a resurrection of the dead in Christ, and a glorification of those who remain alive. Paul is speaking of the coming of the Lord---His return. These resurrected dead and those who are alive, meet Him in the air, and will always be with HIm, as He is descending.
When that is put together with 1 Cor 15 the entire chapter, but for the sake of space, I will quote 50-55"

You assume that it is the Second Coming, and yet those verses do not show His Feet touching down upon this earth as you seem to assume INTO the text. Responding to that, in my estimation, was not at all worthwhile since pointing out the silence from which you are arguing is just that...silence. You're entrenched yourself, and nothing will move you, so why try? The same went for the rest of that post...with you not representing both sides to show which one had more credibility.

Except they do. 1 Thess 4:14-16 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word form the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead will rise first. The argument for silence is on your side, that assumes He returns only part way but His feet never touch the ground. The discussion was about His second coming. Not about a partial coming, and there is no indication anywhere in scripture that there is a partial coming.

1 Cor 15 is a discussion on the resurrection of the dead, which likely came about because of teaching against it, and Paul driving home that if there is no resurrection, then Christ was not resurrected, and if He wasn't, no one will be and our faith is in vain. Then the question arises, how is that possible. Paul explains in verses 50-55 and relates what he is saying directly to inherit the kingdom of heaven, which flesh and blood cannot inherit. In 52 we see that same trumpet blast that was mentioned in 1 Thess, where the dead believers are raised and the living believers are changed---to inherit the kingdom, not wait some a thousand and seven years to inherit it.

I too say yes, in that this is what you believe, and that's fine. If we're in the millennium right now, the entirety of which venomous critters have remained venomous throughout, with lions eating lambs, that framework collapses under its own weight after having allegorized into oblivion those passages pertaining to venom and carnivore animals, not to mention many others that I saw as problematic.

The millennium in idealist amil is THIS AGE---a long indeterminate time period between the first and second advents. So of course all those things you mention are still going on. It does not collapse under its own weight. It only collapse under the weight of your belief, but it is not based on your belief.

 

[CrowCross]

Nah. But next time you ask me a question I won't answer because you're really not interested in understanding, and this defeats the purpose of honest interchange.

Of course I'm really not interested in your false theology....tell me, why should I be? I've heard enough.

 

[Carbon]

I going with Dipsy.

After the pre-trib rapture....many will receive Jesus and become saved. Some will survive the tribulation and enter into the 1000 year reign.
They will have children who will have children and so on during the 1000 year reign. Not all of the children will be believers.
Satan will be locked up then released at the end of the 1000 year reign....

And you actually believe that?

 

[Carbon]

Question:

What does 1 Thess 4:13-18 say about Christ's return?

What does 1 Cor 15:52-57 say about His return?

So where do you get this 1000 year temporal reign, in a land filled with temporal people, and sinners and unbelievers among them, from?

From a misreading of scripture.

 

[CrowCross]

And you actually believe that?

That is what the bible teaches. Are you saying you don't???

 

[Carbon]

That is what the bible teaches. Are you saying you don't???

yes, i do not agre with dispensationalism. i do not believe scripture teaches such a thing.

 

[CrowCross]

yes, i do not agre with dispensationalism. i do not believe scripture teaches such a thing.

I never liked that term...dispensationalism...as there are too many definitions assigned to it.

What is your definition?

How does my post fit in with your definition of dispensationalism?
Here is what I posted....
After the pre-trib rapture....many will receive Jesus and become saved. Some will survive the tribulation and enter into the 1000 year reign.
They will have children who will have children and so on during the 1000 year reign. Not all of the children will be believers.
Satan will be locked up then released at the end of the 1000 year reign....

 

[Arial]

I never liked that term...dispensationalism...as there are too many definitions assigned to it.

What is your definition?

How does my post fit in with your definition of dispensationalism?
Here is what I posted....
After the pre-trib rapture....many will receive Jesus and become saved. Some will survive the tribulation and enter into the 1000 year reign.
They will have children who will have children and so on during the 1000 year reign. Not all of the children will be believers.
Satan will be locked up then released at the end of the 1000 year reign....

Every point is a dispensationalist view.

 

[CrowCross]

Every point is a dispensationalist view.

What is your conncept of dispensationalism?

Is it the separation of pre-flood to post flood? Pre-law to post law? Pre-Christ to post Christ?
Is it God changed His method of salvation?
Is it God treats humanity differently through out history?

I often find it diffucult to see just what is often meant. I pretty much go with my first definition presented above.

 

[Arial]

What is your conncept of dispensationalism?

Is it the separation of pre-flood to post flood? Pre-law to post law? Pre-Christ to post Christ?
Is it God changed His method of salvation?
Is it God treats humanity differently through out history?

I often find it diffucult to see just what is often meant. I pretty much go with my first definition presented above.

It is all of those things and more. It does not make one progressive forward movement of redemptive history. It does not actually have a God/man relationship, though it claims otherwise. The reason it does not, is because it says that relationship is defined by the historical aspects of differing ways in which God relates to mankind, rather than a relationship he has with them, which is always instituted through covenant. And not only with mankind, but the creation itself.

 

[CrowCross]

It is all of those things and more. It does not make one progressive forward movement of redemptive history. It does not actually have a God/man relationship, though it claims otherwise. The reason it does not, is because it says that relationship is defined by the historical aspects of differing ways in which God relates to mankind, rather than a relationship he has with them, which is always instituted through covenant. And not only with mankind, but the creation itself.

I'm not quite sure how that relates to Carbon post 449.

 

[Arial]

I'm not quite sure how that relates to Carbon post 449.

It doesn't. It relates to your posts #450 and 452.

 

[CrowCross]

It doesn't. It relates to your posts #450 and 452.

I'm waiting for @Carbon to respond.

 

[Musicmaster]

1 Thessalonians 5:1-10
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober.
7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

In the verses above, as we consider all the warped and twisted corruptions of the rules of interpretation, the "times and seasons" in that context is NOT speaking of just one day, the Second Coming, as some seem to believe on the basis of some very corrupted hermeneutics. We ALL make use of grammatical license when speaking of another time, such as the 50's. Many have said, "Well, back in the day..." It's not a violation of language to speak of even many years of time by the use of the singular "day" in a sentence, but some will pretend that it's literal in that sense in order to try and force the scriptures to say what they WANT the word of God to say.

Additionally, it will only come upon those "as a thief" whom the Lord does not reveal in advance of His coming because they are not watching. When it was inspired to be written that the Church is not appointed unto wrath, and some think that they can claim that the wrath doesn't begin until half way through, or most of the way through, that's pure nonsense! The Greek word translated as salvation in verse nine doesn't speak to soul salvation, but rather deliverance from the wrath, which begins at the very outset in the opening of the seals.

The very first seal speaks of "conquering," which is a indeed a mild start in the expression of the Lamb's wrath upon this earth and its inhabitants who call this their home. Maybe some here consider this earth their home, but not me. Anyway, given that a fourth of the entire earth's population is wiped out in just the first four seals, and that's not wrath??? Some folks have a strange measure for wrath, because just the second horseman alone, who takes peace from this earth, that's wrath. People are dying in droves, which is then supplemented by economic destruction, coupled with disease and starvation from famines on a scale never before seen on this earth, and some will claim that it's no to bad as to qualify as the wrath of the Lamb? What nonsense!

Those who do not consider themselves a part of the Church, who think they are going to be here, then go for it! Their lack of reading scripture for what it says AND their inability to see the horrendous bloodshed involved with one out of every four dying in just the first four horsemen, which is a scale of death beyond anything this world has ever seen apart from the flood...oh, and when Cain killed Abel does somewhat come close... Those who do not consider themselves a part of the "us" in verse nine, then good luck to you, because you're going to need it!

MM

 

[TMSO]

And it says it will be signified. It began being signified with the lampstands. Are there elements that are not symbolic?

If they were intended solely to be symbols, then why did Jesus take the time to explain to John exactly what they stood for? Have you considered the significance of the symbols? "20 As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."

Consider that Jesus is telling John that EVERYTHING has significance, and isnt' some allegorical thing. Allegories have back story. They need support in order to be understood and used. However, look at how Jesus Himself explains the symbols. No allegory involved at all. There is no need for a back story to establish how the seven stars are angels, or how the seven lampstands are the churches. The symbols in and of themselves, carry meaning to what they stand for. As stars stand over the Earth, the angels are over each church. Watching over, or being over. As lampstands serve to provide light, so each believer, which taken as a whole are the church, are the light of the world. Even presenting a believer as light in this world isn't allegory. It is a figurative way of saying that our testimony should be visible to all around us, as a light is visible to all in range. One could always add what Jesus had to say about the believer being light, and not hiding that light under a bushel but having it visible to all around, giving light.

That is what you are doing, and what dispensationalists are doing. What makes you think you are not. Personally I don't have a pet doctrine. I want to find out what is being said by God, whether I like it or not.

Then why isn't that clear in what you write? I don't have a pet doctrine, as I side with neither the covanentalists or the dispensationalists. Just as I don't side with calvinists, but find that there beliefs are in line with what I believe. The beliefs of dispensational premillennialists is more in line with what I believe, but what I believe has been built over time. It is difficult when there are those out their deliberately hiding the truth. For instance, the idea of a rapture has existed within the church (as an idea) since the early church. And it isn't so much a rapture, but that the early church believed that God would, somehow, shield the church from His coming wrath. As calvin systematized many beliefs already present in some form within the church, Darby systematized beliefs that had been present within the church in the past.

It always does. It is representing something that is literal, in the economy of God. Usually it is representing something that is spiritual, in that it cannot be seen by us. Revelation is literally playing out iow, in the land of the living, but the powers behind it, both good and evil, are invisible to humans. In many places, Revelation is giving that view from the spirit realm, and given our finiteness, that can only be done symbolically, and representatively. But a'mil is not interpreting allegorically, but symbolically. The spiritual meaning behind the symbols. ANd when doing so it neither leave out the texts of both old and new testaments.

So, please explain who the two witnesses are, and how that prophecy is fulfilled without being allegorical. I personally believe that they will be Enoch and Elijah, here on Earth, doing their thing by God's command. Why? Neither of them have died, yet scripture states that it is appointed men (all) once to die and then judgement. God translated them to paradise (what some early church fathers believed) for a later time, in which, this is that time. They will speak out in witness of God against the beast and his kingdom on Earth, and by the power of God, will torment his kingdom. Then, they will be overcome, killed, and everyone one around the world, through the advent of our great technology (TV, internet, smart phones, youtube, etc.) will see them dead, and, as all have faced their torment, they will rejoice to see them dead. Then God will call them back to life, and up to heaven. Notice, not one bit of allegory in my explanation. No loose plot ends with two people who have never died, nevery dying. They will face their time, and God's word will be complete.

The rule of thumb that I follow, is making sure that whatever my conclusions are, they do not contradict clear truths and historical facts in the rest of the Bible. I do not actually try to figure out what every single symbol and number means. It is too big a task for me, mainly because of all the dispensationalist interpretations that were fed by the majority of the church---and in my case 20+ years. (Before I began to question it and search.) And there are direct Scriptures from both Jesus and Paul that undo a return of Jesus with a 1000 year temporal reign to follow, I have given some of them. Which means the OT scriptures concerning a restored Israel are likely being misinterpreted by dispensationalists.

See, that is the opposite of how I look at it. What I read educates what I believe. You see, if you approach it with your set belief, then you will change what it says. If you take what it says, and allow it to shape your belief, then you are in the right. Stop thinking about dispensationalism. Sure, I have my baseline belief that will not change (and that is not premillennialism, pretrib, or any of that, but the place that Israel has in this world), but the rest is negotiable. Then we have what we know. (Check the thread on prophecy). Someone traced the 70 weeks, in this case, the 69th week, to the day of Jesus triumphal entry to Jerusalem. That was the end of the 69th week. How? We know the exact date Artexerxes put out his decree. (History is sometimes kind in that regard.) So they did the calculations, and it came out to some day and some year, where the understood day of Christ's triumphal entry... would have been that day, if that was the year of the triumphal entry. God doesn't deal in the abstract, but the literal. If he says it is 70 weeks, it is 70 weeks. If he said that this is what will be at the end of 7 weeks, that is what will be at the very last day of the 7 weeks. (In this case, Jerusalem and the temple rebuilt, inside and out, which was the case.) This is why God is so serious when it comes to prophecy. If you speak presumptuously in the name of the Lord, even abstractly, you are to be executed, according to God's pronouncement to Israel. And it is something to be taken lightly. God is being quite serious. If it doesn't happen exactly as stated, God didn't say it.

But even though I do not parse every symbol, I get the message. WHich is something that dispensationalists miss, at least in what they say. I asked you once, and you never answered. Is Revelation a "picture book" or a "puzzle book."

Revelation is a picture book. If your final product doesn't match the picture on the box, you have the wrong puzzle.

 

[Carbon]

)I'm waiting for @Carbon to respond.

I'll try to reply a little later today. busy working at the moment.

 

[Carbon]

I'm waiting for @Carbon to respond.

let me start with this for now. dispensationalism teaches that God has two plans of salvation. one for the Jews and another for the church. scripture teaches no such thing.