Chiliasm ( Millennialism )

[armylngst]

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...

Chapter breaks were added long after the book was written, and it wasn't exactly science. So it is quite possible that chapter breaks are not in the perfect place. Verses didn't exist either, and were added later as well.

 

[Carbon]

I feel you, David.

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".

Yes.

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.

Rome is surrounded by 7 hills, indeed it is. But that's for another thread.

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

You have some good points and I believe you have done your research. However, the Catholic Church didn't have everything wrong. They got some things right. At one time they were even the only Christian church.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

David?

I mentioned I work graveyard right? I blame being crosseyed from lack of sleep. Yep. Sticking to that story.

Sorry, Carbon.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

They got some things right.

Name me one. I'm biased. I loath the RCC for family reasons. Being reformed only gave me more reason.

The church has been the only Christian church. It was highjacked by the RCC. The only debt we owe the RCC is that they carried information forward ( the Scriptures ), by the grace of God, so that we could extricate that information from it ( for the most part ) during the reformation.

 

[David1701]

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

Many Amil's (and almost all of the early Reformers) teach that RCism is the Whore of Babylon, and that the office of "Pope" is the anti-Christ (and Daniel's "little horn"), both of which are very important eschatological points, and neither of which was imported from Romanism (obviously)...

Preterism and Futurism both suit RCism very well, since they take people's minds off the present and place them in the past or future, so that the papal system is not seen as the anti-Christ system that it is, and all kinds of ludicrous suppositions flood people's minds.

Historicism fits the biblical facts best, as far as I can see, although I know that many genuine Christians disagree.

 

[David1701]

Carbon and Rev...see? See?! Every single time.

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

https://salvationbygrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/church_israel.pdf

I've read a few pages now (starting at p 57) and I think that one of the main problems is that he considers that the promises to Israel, were to the nation as a whole (i.e. believers and unbelievers within national Israel). This has never been the case. The promises have always been to the believers (and the unbelievers often benefited from living amongst them).

The NT "church" (a bad translation) is not a replacement for believing Israel; it is the continuation of believing Israel, with the inclusion of a large number of believing Gentiles.

Edited to add:

As far as salvation goes, believing Gentiles are just as much descendants of Abraham as believing Jews are.

Gal. 3:5-9 (KJV)
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Many Amil's (and almost all of the early Reformers) teach that RCism is the Whore of Babylon, and that the office of "Pope" is the anti-Christ (and Daniel's "little horn"), both of which are very important eschatological points, and neither of which was imported from Romanism (obviously)...

Preterism and Futurism both suit RCism very well, since they take people's minds off the present and place them in the past or future, so that the papal system is not seen as the anti-Christ system that it is, and all kinds of ludicrous suppositions flood people's minds.

Historicism fits the biblical facts best, as far as I can see, although I know that many genuine Christians disagree.

Futurists simply hold that national, ethnic Israel still has a future role in God's story of redemption.

How that has the power to take peoples minds off the present in any substantial way I've no clue. Perhaps by denying other possible "ludicrous" systems like Amil and Postmil?

See how easy that is?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

The promises have always been to the believers (and the unbelievers often benefited from living amongst them).

Ok...stop there. List out all the promises God has made to Israel. Don't extend those promises to the church. I know it's hard but resist the temptation. You can extend the stuff that actually applies later but it doesn't, for one, include the land promises.

On second thought don't. Neither of us needs a fight.

 

[ReverendRV]

Futurists simply hold that national, ethnic Israel still has a future role in God's story of redemption.

How that has the power to take peoples minds off the present in any substantial way I've no clue. Perhaps by denying other possible "ludicrous" systems like Amil and Postmil?

See how easy that is?

That's something I'm still expecting...

I like Amillenialism, but I don't know how this fits in it. A part of me thinks we need a new Eschatolgy; a Partial Amill; Partial Premill...

Maybe Amillenialism has something to say about Israel's Future Role, I don't know. Maybe I just need a good reason to stop thinking Israel has a Future Role...

I don't know...

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Just catching myself before I get into a fight.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

That's something I'm still expecting...

I like Amillenialism, but I don't know how this fits in it. A part of me thinks we need a new Eschatolgy; a Partial Amill; Partial Premill...

Maybe Amillenialism has something to say about Israel's Future Role, I don't know. Maybe I just need a good reason to stop thinking Israel has a Future Role...

I don't know...

I believe NCT took a swing at it in some fashion, Rev. Perhaps it's still a work in progress? I know the "Dispensationalists" are busy on the subject and publishing quite a bit ( note all the books I've suggested ).

Jeremiah 31:35-38 won't allow the abolishment of Israel. Which is sort of how the entire replacement theology camp has gotten into the kerfluffle it has. It dearly wants to get rid of Israel for some reason but it has to deal with God plainly saying "No". So they must redefine what Israel means.

 

[Carbon]

Many Amil's (and almost all of the early Reformers) teach that RCism is the Whore of Babylon, and that the office of "Pope" is the anti-Christ (and Daniel's "little horn"), both of which are very important eschatological points, and neither of which was imported from Romanism (obviously)...

Preterism and Futurism both suit RCism very well, since they take people's minds off the present and place them in the past or future, so that the papal system is not seen as the anti-Christ system that it is, and all kinds of ludicrous suppositions flood people's minds.

Historicism fits the biblical facts best, as far as I can see, although I know that many genuine Christians disagree.

I tend to agree with the reformers.

 

[ReverendRV]

I believe NCT took a swing at it in some fashion, Rev. Perhaps it's still a work in progress? I know the "Dispensationalists" are busy on the subject and publishing quite a bit ( note all the books I've suggested ).

Jeremiah 31:35-38 won't allow the abolishment of Israel. Which is sort of how the entire replacement theology camp has gotten into the kerfluffle it has. It dearly wants to get rid of Israel for some reason but it has to deal with God plainly saying "No". So they must redefine what Israel means.

I'm eclectic in just about everything; it's why I call myself a Notorious Middle-Man. It's why I call myself the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet...

So I shouldn't expect I would be different when it comes to Eschatology...

 

[Carbon]

Name me one. I'm biased. I loath the RCC for family reasons. Being reformed only gave me more reason.

The church has been the only Christian church. It was highjacked by the RCC. The only debt we owe the RCC is that they carried information forward ( the Scriptures ), by the grace of God, so that we could extricate that information from it ( for the most part ) during the reformation.

The early church fathers were Catholic. The early churches were considered free churches scattered all around through aisa minor before they were united by God, for her protection. The catholic church was not so corrupt at the beginning. It took a while for the many pagan practices to come into the church. Luther, during his time, didn't want to leave the church, he wanted to bring it back to the bible.
If you do not agree that okay brother. I'm sure you have your reasons. But consider Augustine, he was Catholic, and look at his fight against Pelagian. That wasn't a good thing for Christianity. Consider Irenaeus and his writing against heresies.

And so much more.
I was brought up RC, I left it a long time ago and studied it much.

I'm pretty sure I can prove the RCC and her pope is the anti-christ system scripture teaches about. At least, I'm convinced of it. But in this, we must be careful because there are a lot of good Catholic people and I believe there are some in the RCC who are saved.

 

[Carbon]

I'm eclectic in just about everything; it's why I call myself a Notorious Middle-Man. It's why I call myself the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet...

So I shouldn't expect I would be different when it comes to Eschatology...

Gee and after all this time I thought for sure you were a hyper Calvinist?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I tend to agree with the reformers.

So do I...except in the case of Rome. Italy doesn't fall within the range of the ancient enemies of Israel. So pinning Anti-Christ ( capital ) and false prophet on them seems a little...biased. Don't get me wrong...I'm not a fan of the RCC. At all. But Bible first.

 

[Carbon]

So do I...except in the case of Rome. Italy doesn't fall within the range of the ancient enemies of Israel. So pinning Anti-Christ ( capital ) and false prophet on them seems a little...biased. Don't get me wrong...I'm not a fan of the RCC. At all. But Bible first.

The Vatican, which is its own country in Rome you mean?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

The early church fathers were Catholic.

Eh...the ECFs were "catholic" in the sense of the universal church. But, correct me if I'm wrong, the ECFs existed prior too what we would recognize as the RCC. That came in around the time of Agustine...yes?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

The Vatican, which is its own country in Rome you mean?

Not sure of the distinction, Carbon. Rome, the Vatican, all within Italy. Not a huge fan. Not convinced they are "THE" Anti-Christ or False Prophet simply based on location.

Anti-christ ( small letters ) absolutely. And here I make a further distinction. There are saved people in the RCC *despite* the RCC and it's false gospel and apostasy.

 

[Carbon]

Eh...the ECFs were "catholic" in the sense of the universal church.

Exactly. Do you see this is why the RC'c claim them as theirs? Eventually the Catholic church became a political power.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, the ECFs existed prior too what we would recognize as the RCC. That came in around the time of Agustine...yes?

If you follow the history of the Christian church you will see the times the Catholic church broke away in numerous areas leading to its demise. All the issues like purgatory, for example, hypostatic union, the pope, they were working through. Just because some agreed with purgatory or accepted a pope does not mean they were not Christian. What took them out of Christianity is their belief, men are saved by faith + works as far as I know. But their political power caused corruption throughgout.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.