• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Chiliasm ( Millennialism )

I enjoyed the video. If I taught on Youtube, I would probably approach things like Pastor Jim; in an elementary, Matter of Fact kind of way. But I would be quicker about it...

Not to drive you away from CCAM, but I noticed a GLARING problem. I won't mention it, but I would mention it in Pastor Jim's Sunday School Class; like I would mention things in civic's Sunday School Class if I were there...

Keep them coming. I am looking for Positive Reasons each Eschatology has on their side; but there is already a Thread for that...
 
I'd love to hear of you writing him and what his response is, Rev.
Thanks for participating brother. I don't see why I should write to him about it; I'll write it here...

Jim presented the last few chapters of Revelation as one consistent event, that shouldn't have Versification. Let's use an arbitrary number; perhaps all of this could happen in a day. But the Passage included Satan being bound for a thousand years; in the one Account. Therefore, I don't think this can be said to be a consistent, unbroken Narrative...

Versification can be said to be Relative, I agree with that. If someone changed the Chapter and Verses, perhaps they can start a Chapter when Satan is Bound, and end this chapter when Satan is released. This too, would be Relative Versification; but it would seem clear that it is a Thousand Year long Chapter...

Since it's clear that it took a Thousand Years to pass in just the space of a few Verses, I don't think we should read the Passage Jim read; as an event taking place as if there are no proper breaks in it: without Gaps in it...

But like I said, I am looking for Positive reasons to believe an Eschatology, no matter which Eschatology it is. Your point that God is not done with Israel, is a great point for Premillenial Dispensational Eschatology. Jim's point that a Chapter break shouldn't be where it is, is just a point; not a great point. Since more, smaller Chapter breaks could exist, that's not a good reason to want to rid the Bible of a Chapter break. I'm not saying that's what Jim wants to do, to help Jim make his Case; but that's what Jim wants to do...
 
Thanks for participating brother. I don't see why I should write to him about it; I'll write it here...

Jim presented the last few chapters of Revelation as one consistent event, that shouldn't have Versification. Let's use an arbitrary number; perhaps all of this could happen in a day. But the Passage included Satan being bound for a thousand years; in the one Account. Therefore, I don't think this can be said to be a consistent, unbroken Narrative...

Versification can be said to be Relative, I agree with that. If someone changed the Chapter and Verses, perhaps they can start a Chapter when Satan is Bound, and end this chapter when Satan is released. This too, would be Relative Versification; but it would seem clear that it is a Thousand Year long Chapter...

Since it's clear that it took a Thousand Years to pass in just the space of a few Verses, I don't think we should read the Passage Jim read; as an event taking place as if there are no proper breaks in it: without Gaps in it...

But like I said, I am looking for Positive reasons to believe an Eschatology, no matter which Eschatology it is. Your point that God is not done with Israel, is a great point for Premillenial Dispensational Eschatology. Jim's point that a Chapter break shouldn't be where it is, is just a point; not a great point. Since more, smaller Chapter breaks could exist, that's not a good reason to want to rid the Bible of a Chapter break. I'm not saying that's what Jim wants to do, to help Jim make his Case; but that's what Jim wants to do...
And, God not being finished with Israel is consistent with Amil and Postmil positions, just not in the same way.
 
And, God not being finished with Israel is consistent with Amil and Postmil positions, just not in the same way.
Would you like to go to my Thread here, and offer Positive Reasons Amillenialism teaches God is not through with Israel? That's kind of what I'm looking for; and what I need...
 
Thanks for participating brother. I don't see why I should write to him about it; I'll write it here...

Jim presented the last few chapters of Revelation as one consistent event, that shouldn't have Versification. Let's use an arbitrary number; perhaps all of this could happen in a day. But the Passage included Satan being bound for a thousand years; in the one Account. Therefore, I don't think this can be said to be a consistent, unbroken Narrative...

Versification can be said to be Relative, I agree with that. If someone changed the Chapter and Verses, perhaps they can start a Chapter when Satan is Bound, and end this chapter when Satan is released. This too, would be Relative Versification; but it would seem clear that it is a Thousand Year long Chapter...

Since it's clear that it took a Thousand Years to pass in just the space of a few Verses, I don't think we should read the Passage Jim read; as an event taking place as if there are no proper breaks in it: without Gaps in it...

But like I said, I am looking for Positive reasons to believe an Eschatology, no matter which Eschatology it is. Your point that God is not done with Israel, is a great point for Premillenial Dispensational Eschatology. Jim's point that a Chapter break shouldn't be where it is, is just a point; not a great point. Since more, smaller Chapter breaks could exist, that's not a good reason to want to rid the Bible of a Chapter break. I'm not saying that's what Jim wants to do, to help Jim make his Case; but that's what Jim wants to do...
What was Jim's entire point about reading through Rev 19-21ish, Rev? It's to establish a timeline and prove that the chronology was not shifted or changed. Chapter 20 comes after chapter 19.
 
And, God not being finished with Israel is consistent with Amil and Postmil positions, just not in the same way.
Horsefeathers. The moment you substitute the church for Israel this is a moot point. God either keeps all of his promises to the people He makes the promises too or none of us have any hope.
 
By the way, thanks for coming back...
Not sure if I am "back". Just have points that come to mind that you and others offered in good faith. In reviewing my "notes" there is stuff I can contribute and *not* argue about.

And just so you know, brother, I've had many chats with Jim over this and that. We don't agree on everything but who does? But I can tell you that he is a joy to "talk" with and will cause you to think. Perhaps even have "positive" aspects of Pre-Mil that you can noodle on if you truly want them. But you have to want them enough to actually interact with him. My focus is elsewhere.
 
Horsefeathers. The moment you substitute the church for Israel this is a moot point. God either keeps all of his promises to the people He makes the promises too or none of us have any hope.
You'll be glad to know that there are horses with feathered feet! :cool:


Salvation has always been to those believe in the Messiah. When Gentiles believe, they are added to spiritual Israel, which is the root.

Salvation is of the Jews, as Jesus said, and that has not changed; however, the wall of partition has been broken down, so that saved Jews and Gentiles are now all part of the one body. At the moment, that body is mainly comprised of ex-Gentiles (there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the New Covenant); but, when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, the fulness of the Jews will also come in and so all Israel will be saved (all elect Jews and all elect Gentiles).

Now, physical Israel has returned, as we all know; but, salvation is only found in spiritual Israel, which is, at the moment, a small remnant of "Messianic Jews" and a lot of Gentiles.
 
You'll be glad to know that there are horses with feathered feet! :cool:


Salvation has always been to those believe in the Messiah. When Gentiles believe, they are added to spiritual Israel, which is the root.

Salvation is of the Jews, as Jesus said, and that has not changed; however, the wall of partition has been broken down, so that saved Jews and Gentiles are now all part of the one body. At the moment, that body is mainly comprised of ex-Gentiles (there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the New Covenant); but, when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, the fulness of the Jews will also come in and so all Israel will be saved (all elect Jews and all elect Gentiles).

Now, physical Israel has returned, as we all know; but, salvation is only found in spiritual Israel, which is, at the moment, a small remnant of "Messianic Jews" and a lot of Gentiles.
Which immediately causes two major problems...First that the "church" as "Spiritual Israel" ( no such critter in Scripture ) is under a curse for the sake of...itself ( Romans 11 )? Second that it completely erases physical ethnic Israel and the promises that God has made specifically to them. So that particular horse won't run for me. 🤠 ❤️
 
Which immediately causes two major problems...First that the "church" as "Spiritual Israel" ( no such critter in Scripture ) is under a curse for the sake of...itself ( Romans 11 )? Second that it completely erases physical ethnic Israel and the promises that God has made specifically to them. So that particular horse won't run for me. 🤠 ❤️
They are not all Israel who are of Israel.

Rom. 9:6 (KJV) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

I call the believing remnant "spiritual Israel". Now, you may object that this exact expression is not used in Scripture, and it's true that it's not; but, the concept is there. You have physical Israel, and, within that, you have a subset who genuinely believe in the Messiah. These people are "spiritual", in that they have a living relationship with the Lord.

It's sad that most translations translate "ekklesia" as "church", since the correct translation would be "assembly", or, "congregation". It's not a separate entity from the believing remnant of Israel; rather, Gentiles who get saved are grafted into this believing remnant, so that both are part of one body.

Rom. 11:13-18 (KJV)
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Eph. 2:11-19
(KJV)
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Are the promises to Israel to be fulfilled literally, or do they have a figurative fulfilment (or a mixture of the two)?

Here's one example that is sometimes taken literally, yet the NT shows that it is figurative.

Acts 15:13-17 (KJV)
13 ¶ And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
 
Carbon and Rev...see? See?! Every single time.

Page 57 and onward. Or start at the beginning, David.

I have read much on eschatological systems. I was pre-mil years ago, but from study I am Amil. I believe both systems are Christian systems. When I do have the time I will read what you presented here. I kinda have to be in the mood to read on these things, I literally burnt myself out for a while on the subject from a long study. I found when studying into these things with scripture it's like never ending almost. It's pretty in-depth. And when all is said and done, it's not a salvational issue. This is probably why many reformers and theologians like Spurgeon or Calvin, I don't think they taught much about these things. Though I could be wrong.
 
I have read much on eschatological systems. I was pre-mil years ago, but from study I am Amil. I believe both systems are Christian systems. When I do have the time I will read what you presented here. I kinda have to be in the mood to read on these things, I literally burnt myself out for a while on the subject from a long study. I found when studying into these things with scripture it's like never ending almost. It's pretty in-depth. And when all is said and done, it's not a salvational issue. This is probably why many reformers and theologians like Spurgeon or Calvin, I don't think they taught much about these things. Though I could be wrong.
I feel you, David. No rush. For the most part the reformers were concerned with Soteriology and Ecclesiology ( from what I understand ). Eschatology not so much. There are, again from what I remember reading, great swaths of stuff that were by necessity imported whole cloth from the RCC. By necessity I mean "running for their lives half the time".

Eschatology was one of those things that was imported. A few minor changes were made in deference for the time...The reformers weren't certain who were more odious ( with good reason ); the "Jews" or the Roman Catholics. It was fortunate or perhaps unfortunate that Rome has seven hills. Lends itself too certain views.

As I've said elsewhere the very fact that Amil was imported from the RCC would be the A#1 reason for me to look at it extremely carefully. At least as carefully as how people get saved. But at the time there was no TIME to look at everything carefully. What with the RCC hunting down Protestants and then the backlash against the RCC in Luther's area and then the kerfluffle pretty much was everywhere for...what...a century or two? By then almighty Tradition had set in.

/shrug
 
Back
Top