Amillenial Baptists?

[Communion]

Here are several. I'll let you look them up so that you can't accuse me of proof texting. lol

John the Prebyster, as cited by Papias.
Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Polycarp.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin.
Iranaeus, Against Heresies.
Lactantius, Divine Institutes.

This is a start. Now, can you cite any early ECFs (1st and 2nd. centuries) that were against the millennium reign of Christ?

Aw gee ya gonna make me wade through all that Hard to tell what I might find, seem those Catholic folks quote a lot of these guys for stuff too.

 

[JM]

Against better judgement and sound advice, I'm posting in this thread...again.

JM, none of the verses that you posted address the taking of the promise by the church. I am not ignoring what you posted and addressed every single portion of it.

Because you posted the above I am convinced you didn't understand what I posted.

Brother, It seems that you like to lump everyone into a label which is why I asked you to define some terms in your own words so that we can discuss that understanding. I agree with the dispensationalists view as far as reading the bible literally (except when literary devices makes it obvious that it is not).

Ok, so we agree that scripture is not to be taken literally, all the time.

Who said anything about ethnic Israel? Presently, ethnic Israel is mainly secular with pockets of the religious. God ordained a future tribulation to bring Israel into His fold. Examples of God doing this are plenty in the OT. God's promise that Israel will be His people and He will be their God will be fulfilled in the end of times not before.

Then we must agree the Israel we see today is not a fulfillment of (Dispensational) prophecy since, literally, they did not come back to the land weeping and receiving the Spirit of God. (Jer. 31:8-10)

The NT writers are quoting the OT because it is still pertinent not because the church is now the sole recipient of the promise.

Yes, Hebrews is written to Hebrews telling them the old covenant is gone, forget it...it was a shadow of what we have in Christ. The new covenant is better and since there is only one soteriology for the people of God this is it, this is the last administration of the covenant.

Excuse me but you have not provided a single literal verse that teaches that the church is now Israel. I am not the one allegorizing scripture. Verses must be taken in context.

Yah, I agree. We need to view the verse in context and not literallisticly as your hermeneutic forces you to do. Doesn't it bother you that no one before Darby made such a striking (false) dichotomy between the church and Israel? Try reading Amos 9 and Acts 15 literally, where we find the church being referred to (literally) as the tabernacle of David.

I'm guilty of following the New Testament interpretation of the Old.

jm

 

[Nilloc]

Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Polycarp.

Where do Clement or Iganatius say anything about a Millenium? It's been a long time since I read them, but I don't recall any reference to Rev. 20; nor have I heard any modern interperters use them in defense of or againist any Millennial postion.

 

[Hentenza]

Where do Clement or Iganatius say anything about a Millenium? It's been a long time since I read them, but I don't recall any reference to Rev. 20; nor have I heard any modern interperters use them in defense of or againist any Millennial postion.

Hi Nilloc,

Clement of Rome and Ignatius wrote consistent with the yet future literal, physical kingdom of God on earth. Both of their texts are consistent with the predominant chiliastic views of the time. Both preached the "Christ come quickly" in the context of a future kingdom of God on earth. Neither of them exegeted Revelations 20 in any of their extant texts.

 

[Hentenza]

Against better judgement and sound advice, I'm posting in this thread...again.

Brother, this is a discussion between brothers. You are welcomed to continue posting or not as you see fit.

Because you posted the above I am convinced you didn't understand what I posted.

How so?

Ok, so we agree that scripture is not to be taken literally, all the time.

There is plenty of symbolism, allegory, analogies, and parables in scripture. Those are well defined by their literary devices. For example, we know that God is spirit therefore He doesn't have literal hands and probably does not have wings. lol

Then we must agree the Israel we see today is not a fulfillment of (Dispensational) prophecy since, literally, they did not come back to the land weeping and receiving the Spirit of God. (Jer. 31:8-10)

Yet. The fulfillment is yet future, however, the establishment of the political Israel is certainly a start. Much needs to happen before those prophesies are fulfilled and they will be fulfilled in God's time. There is nothing that we can do to quicken it.

Yes, Hebrews is written to Hebrews telling them the old covenant is gone, forget it...it was a shadow of what we have in Christ. The new covenant is better and since there is only one soteriology for the people of God this is it, this is the last administration of the covenant.

So do you disagree with what Jesus himself said in Matt. 5? Has any jot of the law passed away yet?

Yah, I agree. We need to view the verse in context and not literallisticly as your hermeneutic forces you to do. Doesn't it bother you that no one before Darby made such a striking (false) dichotomy between the church and Israel? Try reading Amos 9 and Acts 15 literally, where we find the church being referred to (literally) as the tabernacle of David.

Tell me, what makes Rev. 20:4-6 allegorical in your view? What literary device is used that points to an allegorical interpretation?

 

[Hentenza]

Aw gee ya gonna make me wade through all that Hard to tell what I might find, seem those Catholic folks quote a lot of these guys for stuff too.

LOL!! yeah, but they were not "C"atholic then. The RC merely appropriated them.

 

[Hentenza]

In Christ, Israel includes both ethnic Jews and believing Gentiles in one tree. The tree is Israel, it is the people of God in every age. To limit it to a bioethnic group is contrary to the New Testament which in many places takes pains to completely obliterate distinctions between "Jews" and "Greeks". The same kind of mistake is made when "the Church" is understood to be a "Gentile" entity and "Israel" a "Jewish" entity, the two not being reconciled until the end of days.

I am certainly not limiting the olive tree to one bioethnic group since the church has since been grafted in. We are both partakers of the promise, however, there is a clear distinction regarding the fulfillment of the end of days. For example, have you wondered why it is so important that Jesus be of the line of David? Both Mathew and Luke wrote the geanologies to prove it.

The Bible says that the two ARE one, not that they shall be made one.

No. The bible certainly does not state that both are one. There is no Jew nor Greek in the church, however, there certainly is both Jews and gentiles in the end of times narratives. Both the Jews and Gentiles will not be one until the filfillment of the end of times. Until then then there certainly will be those in the church and those that are from the future remnant of Israel.

Such distinctions are the products of a false, superimposed theological imperative.

Brother, not everything has been fulfilled yet. There is still much to come.

The predominance of the expression "Israel" to describe the people of God in the Old Testament, and the predominance of the word "Church" to describe the same people in the New Testament should confuse no one. They are the same thing; i.e. the People of God, the Elect. It is not for nothing that Greek translations of the Old Testament call Israel, gathered for war or for worship, "Ekklesia".

Again, those that are in Christ are certainly part of the church, however, those Jews that composed the remnant of Israel that will be saved in the end of times certainly is not. You need to remember that israel was elected also just as we have. God does not unelect His elect.

 

[JM]

Hi Nilloc,

Clement of Rome and Ignatius wrote consistent with the yet future literal, physical kingdom of God on earth. Both of their texts are consistent with the predominant chiliastic views of the time. Both preached the "Christ come quickly" in the context of a future kingdom of God on earth. Neither of them exegeted Revelations 20 in any of their extant texts.

Quote please. Even if you supply a quote you would be hard pressed to find something in their works about the secret rapture.

When I wrote that you did not understand what I posted I was referring to the idea that somehow the church took the promises given to ethnic Israel. That is not the case.

There is plenty of symbolism, allegory, analogies, and parables in scripture. Those are well defined by their literary devices. For example, we know that God is spirit therefore He doesn't have literal hands and probably does not have wings. lol

Yup, agreed. The idea of a strict, wooden, literal understanding of the scripture has lead many Dispensaitonalists to Mid-Acts and Acts 28 Dispensationalism. It's the logical outcome of the system.

About the national Israel...

Yet. The fulfillment is yet future, however, the establishment of the political Israel is certainly a start. Much needs to happen before those prophesies are fulfilled and they will be fulfilled in God's time. There is nothing that we can do to quicken it.

That has yet to be proven.

So do you disagree with what Jesus himself said in Matt. 5? Has any jot of the law passed away yet?

The moral Law is eternal the ceremonial Law is not. The shadows and types of the old covenant are gone. I cannot encourage people to believe these shadows and types will return when "all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."

Tell me, what makes Rev. 20:4-6 allegorical in your view? What literary device is used that points to an allegorical interpretation?

Well, for starters...is the key to the pit is literal? Is the chain a literal chain used to bound a spiritual being?

Also, when Revelation begins in chapter 1 verse 1 we are told these "things which must shortly come to pass" (not literal, even you agree), "he sent and signified" (signified is a noun and means "the thing or concept denoted by a sign"), by his angel (messenger)...so, right from the start we find it's not literal.

jm

 

[JM]

LOL!! yeah, but they were not "C"atholic then. The RC merely appropriated them.

Kind of what the Dispensationalists have done with premillennialism...

 

[Nilloc]

Hi Nilloc,

Clement of Rome and Ignatius wrote consistent with the yet future literal, physical kingdom of God on earth. Both of their texts are consistent with the predominant chiliastic views of the time. Both preached the "Christ come quickly" in the context of a future kingdom of God on earth. Neither of them exegeted Revelations 20 in any of their extant texts.

Hi Hentenza.

I don't see how that necessitates a belief in Premillennialism. I believe in a future, literal, physical kingdom of God on earth, but I'm not premillennial.

Now obviously, what Clement or Ignatius thought doesn't make the doctrine correct or incorrect. But I don't think Premill was as widespread in the early second century as it was in the mid to late second century. The reason why later fathers like Irenaeus and Justin were Premill probably had less to do with exegesis of the Apocalypse and more to do with the writings of Papias. Since Papias didn't write till A.D. 125-130 and I don't remember any Church Fathers (the few that we have at that time) espousing Premillennialism before then--it just seems telling to me.

 

[JM]

Try this: The End Times and the People of God

It's a message from a historic premil view, not the modern Dispensaitonal view held by Hentenza, but a view that is closer to the belief held by the early, often Jewish Christians he refers to.

Try this: Amillennialism

These sermons cover the topic as well.

Also, Pastor Mencarow's sermons on the subject are detailed and helpful.

jm

 

[Hentenza]

Quote please. Even if you supply a quote you would be hard pressed to find something in their works about the secret rapture.

I'm not debating the rapture but the millenium reign of Christ.

When I wrote that you did not understand what I posted I was referring to the idea that somehow the church took the promises given to ethnic Israel. That is not the case.

Mmmm....you used the verses from Jer. 31 to substantiate your post. So are you now saying that those verses are not applied to the church?

Yup, agreed. The idea of a strict, wooden, literal understanding of the scripture has lead many Dispensaitonalists to Mid-Acts and Acts 28 Dispensationalism. It's the logical outcome of the system.

I agree. The church began in Acts 2.

About the national Israel...

That has yet to be proven.

It is certainly in line with unfulfilled future prophesy.

The moral Law is eternal the ceremonial Law is not. The shadows and types of the old covenant are gone. I cannot encourage people to believe these shadows and types will return when "all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."

What God ordains is Holy. Jesus told us explicitly when they will go away and that time is not yet come.

Well, for starters...is the key to the pit is literal? Is the chain a literal chain used to bound a spiritual being?

I tend to believe that both of those are probably symbolic, however, the 1000 year reign is repeated 3 times in those short verses. Do you think that the first resurrection will be literal? Do you think that there will be the souls of those who were beheaded for their faith during the tribulation in heaven? What makes you think that they will not reign with Christ for 1000 years?

Also, when Revelation begins in chapter 1 verse 1 we are told these "things which must shortly come to pass" (not literal, even you agree), "he sent and signified" (signified is a noun and means "the thing or concept denoted by a sign"), by his angel (messenger)...so, right from the start we find it's not literal.

To give a sign in no way signifies that all text after it is symbolic or allegorical. I can give you a sign with my hand showing you how to get to an address (turn right or left) and you will understand it as exactly that. The word σημαίνω (semaino) in the same form is used in Acts 11:28 and is certainly not an allegory nor a symbol. The other 4 uses of the word (John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19, and Acts 25:27) are certainly not allegorical either.

In addition, verse 2 and 3 are certainly not allegorical nor symbolic so that kind of shoots that theory out of the water. lol

jm[/quote]

 

[Hentenza]

Kind of what the Dispensationalists have done with premillennialism...

Some have. There are fringe folks everywhere.

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Hentenza.

I don't see how that necessitates a belief in Premillennialism. I believe in a future, literal, physical kingdom of God on earth, but I'm not premillennial.

You are close if that is the case. I asked this of another poster but I'll ask you also. Why do you think it was so important for Jesus to be of the libe of David?

Now obviously, what Clement or Ignatius thought doesn't make the doctrine correct or incorrect. But I don't think Premill was as widespread in the early second century as it was in the mid to late second century. The reason why later fathers like Irenaeus and Justin were Premill probably had less to do with exegesis of the Apocalypse and more to do with the writings of Papias. Since Papias didn't write till A.D. 125-130 and I don't remember any Church Fathers (the few that we have at that time) espousing Premillennialism before then--it just seems telling to me.

Actually I can show you the progression to amil as the pope began to gain positional authority over the church. The mentality shifted as those advocating for this positional authority removed themselves from the future literal reign of Christ on earth. You can see the progression culminating with the pope calling himself the vicar of Christ on earth.

 

[Anoetos]

I am just bothered by the expression "Replacement Theology".

It's slanderous because it is used in a clear desire to misrepresent and demonize while at the same time subsisting in a clear perversion of a view other than that of the person insisting upon it.

Without that I wouldn't even be in this conversation. You all can argue about whether Israel is the Church or not, but don't say that we believe that the church "replaces" Israel. We do not. To say that we do is to assume that your own perspective is a proper matrix for assessing the perspective of another without regard for their belief.

In short, it's bigotry.

It would be very much like me insisting that all Dispensationalists deny the Gospel since they insist that God saves people under different economies by different programs and means. The reason I don't say this is because I know that Dispensationalists don't say it and I respect their own self-identification and I find enough there to disagree with without having to resort to fabrications.

But for the sake of good clean fun, and since, clearly, honesty is irrelevant to some in these discussions, I will begin to insist it to be the very bedrock of all dispensational premillennial belief.

 

[Hentenza]

I am just bothered by the expression "Replacement Theology".

It's slanderous because it is used in a clear desire to misrepresent and demonize while at the same time subsisting in a clear perversion of a view other than that of the person insisting upon it.

Without that I wouldn't even be in this conversation. You all can argue about whether Israel is the Church or not, but don't say that we believe that the church "replaces" Israel. We do not. To say that we do is to assume that your own perspective is a proper matrix for assessing the perspective of another without regard for their belief.

In short, it's bigotry.

It would be very much like me insisting that all Dispensationalists deny the Gospel since they insist that God saves people under different economies by different programs and means. The reason I don;t say this is because I know that Dispensationalists don;t say it and I respect their own self-identification and I find enough there to disagree with without having to resort to fabrications.

Fair enough. I don't particularly like the term either and shy away from using it.

 

[Anoetos]

And I appreciate that, Hentenza. Thank you very much.

 

[Nilloc]

Hi Hentenza.

You are close if that is the case.

Well, I don’t think so. I’ve never heard of an Amillennialist (at least not a Reformed one) who didn’t believe that Christ would reign on the earth in a literal physical kingdom. I’m 99.9% certain I’ve heard Kim Riddlebarger (probably the strongest modern advocate for Reformed Amillennialism) affirm that Jesus would reign on the earth—he’s certainly never denied it—and I doubt anybody’d say he was close to Premillennialism.

I asked this of another poster but I'll ask you also. Why do you think it was so important for Jesus to be of the libe of David?

To fulfill the Davidic Covenant, which, interestingly enough, says that the kingdom under which David’s seed would rule would be forever, not just a thousand years (2 Sam. 7:13,17).

Actually I can show you the progression to amil as the pope began to gain positional authority over the church. The mentality shifted as those advocating for this positional authority removed themselves from the future literal reign of Christ on earth. You can see the progression culminating with the pope calling himself the vicar of Christ on earth.

I think you might be giving Rome a little too much credit there. Even one as ignorant of Church History as I am knows that Amillennialism really got popular because of Augustine in the fourth century and that the Bishop of Rome wasn’t even close to what the Papacy would eventually develop into.

Besides, I was not claiming Amill had stronger Patristic testimony than Premill; I was just questioning your claim that fathers like Clement and Ignatius were Premill.

 

[DeaconDean]

The moral Law is eternal the ceremonial Law is not. The shadows and types of the old covenant are gone. I cannot encourage people to believe these shadows and types will return when "all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."

But yet, that is what a vast majority of Amilennialists have done.

Especailly when you add to the mix the last nine chapters of Ezekiel.

There will be a new temple built where the priesthood will be established under the line of Zadok.

The sacrifices will resume.

Circumcision will again be insituted.

Taxes will be levied in order to sacrifice.

All this (a resumation of the ceremonial and ritual laws) is being perpetuated through Amillennialism.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Hentenza.

Well, I don’t think so. I’ve never heard of an Amillennialist (at least not a Reformed one) who didn’t believe that Christ would reign on the earth in a literal physical kingdom. I’m 99.9% certain I’ve heard Kim Riddlebarger (probably the strongest modern advocate for Reformed Amillennialism) affirm that Jesus would reign on the earth—he’s certainly never denied it—and I doubt anybody’d say he was close to Premillennialism.

Yes, the difference is the millennium portion of Christ reign.

To fulfill the Davidic Covenant, which, interestingly enough, says that the kingdom under which David’s seed would rule would be forever, not just a thousand years (2 Sam. 7:13,17).

Yes, Christ reign is eternal and the Lamb will be reigning right alongside the throne of God (Rev. 21:1,3). The millennium is the portion of His reign where He fulfills many prophesies including putting all of His enemies under His footstool and then He hands all to the Father. None of these prophesies can happen if there is no millennium since their culmination is the end of the millennium reign as depicted in Rev. 20.

I think you might be giving Rome a little too much credit there. Even one as ignorant of Church History as I am knows that Amillennialism really got popular because of Augustine in the fourth century and that the Bishop of Rome wasn’t even close to what the Papacy would eventually develop into.

Sure, the latter Augustine promoted it but the dissention from premil started in the early third century with Caius (sometimes written as Gaius) who wrote around 210ad and then Clement Alexandrinus and then Origen.

BTW- You can easily follow the growth of the papacy by the councils.

Besides, I was not claiming Amill had stronger Patristic testimony than Premill; I was just questioning your claim that fathers like Clement and Ignatius were Premill.

K