Amillennial denominations

[Biblewriter]

How you were painted into a corner was on the "dispersion" of 1 Peter 1:1, 2. When one can clearly see the Babylonian exile is not in view. I posted a cogent and direct response to yours and it makes the case. What was your response? Because you could not refute it you say "100% interpretation".

That was your bailout...to refute my response.

I did not say 100% interpretation in response to your comments about the diaspora. I said it, and continue to say it, in response to your overall argument.

But you are treating my words just like you treat the New Testament. I did not say that the Babylonian exile was in view. And I pointed out that I did not say that, and you continue to claim that I "painted myself into a corner" by saying it.

What I did was to quote the dictionary definition of the word diaspora, showing that it had already been in use for a long time before New Testament times. I pointed out that it was a standard word, well known and established in the society in which these words were written. And it meant the Jews that had been dispersed around the world. The fact that the use of this word had begun at the time pof the Babylonian exile had no bearing on the subject, and I did not even suggest that it did.

So please give up on this nonsense that I "painted myself into a corner" on this.

 

[ebedmelech]

I did not say 100% interpretation in response to your comments about the diaspora. I said it, and continue to say it, in response to your overall argument.

But you are treating my words just like you treat the New Testament. I did not say that the Babylonian exile was in view. And I pointed out that I did not say that, and you continue to claim that I "painted myself into a corner" by saying it.

What I did was to quote the dictionary definition of the word diaspora, showing that it had already been in use for a long time before New Testament times. I pointed out that it was a standard word, well known and established in the society in which these words were written. And it meant the Jews that had been dispersed around the world. The fact that the use of this word had begun at the time pof the Babylonian exile had no bearing on the subject, and I did not even suggest that it did.

So please give up on this nonsense that I "painted myself into a corner" on this.

That's not the point Biblewriter. You said that term was what Peter was referring to...it was not. What Peter was referring to was the dispersion of the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 8.

You can have it your way though...if it makes you happy.

 

[Biblewriter]

That's not the point Biblewriter. You said that term was what Peter was referring to...it was not. What Peter was referring to was the dispersion of the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 8.

You can have it your way though...if it makes you happy.

When you find scriptural proof of that, other than another interpretation, let me know.

 

[ebedmelech]

When you find scriptural proof of that, other than another interpretation, let me know.

Well...let's give you that proof:

Here's where Peter said they were scattered:
1 Peter 1:2:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

Now...after the "scattering" from Jerusalem, we know Paul and Barnabus were separated by the Holy Spirit for Asia.

Do I need to say more? I would think not...but like I said...have it your way.

 

[Biblewriter]

Well...let's give you that proof:

Here's where Peter said they were scattered:
1 Peter 1:2:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

Now...after the "scattering" from Jerusalem, we know Paul and Barnabus were separated by the Holy Spirit for Asia.

Do I need to say more? I would think not...but like I said...have it your way.

It was written to Christian Jews of the dispersion. I agree that many of these would be the ones that were scattered from Jerusalem. But nothing it the text says that. I don't even remember why we are debating this. What was the point, anyway?

 

[ebedmelech]

It was written to Christian Jews of the dispersion. I agree that many of these would be the ones that were scattered from Jerusalem. But nothing it the text says that. I don't even remember why we are debating this. What was the point, anyway?

We debate this on the basis of who was 1 Peter written to. Riverrat stated it was written to Jews...nothing says that.

Anyhow, you still make a bogus assertion.

I will continue to hold this is written to the churches period, it had nothing to do with Jews, but the church. Peter is way past making a difference in the Jew or the Gentile...unless you want to reject his vision to go preach to the Gentile Cornelius.

These are the things you ignore Biblewriter...and it's just wrong.

 

[Biblewriter]

These are the things you ignore Biblewriter...and it's just wrong.

I am not the one of us that has admitted that his doctrine is "flatly contradicted by about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less."

 

[ebedmelech]

I am not the one of us that has admitted that his doctrine is "flatly contradicted by about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less."

I know. You ignore the NT apostles who make NO reference to a future kingdom for Israel...NONE!

 

[mannysee]

^
Now, now, boys. Go and play outside.

You could add Westminster Presbyterian to the list.

 

[Biblewriter]

I know. You ignore the NT apostles who make NO reference to a future kingdom for Israel...NONE!

I am getting tired of this false accusation. You know it is 100% false because you have read my analysis of what they taught. The fact that I do not agree with your analysis of what they taught does not mean I ignore them.

But my accusation was true. It took place in this exchange from earlier in this thread:

Post #32

...what I said is what I always say...Israel is nothing prophetically.

Post #36

This is flatly contrary to about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less.

Post #38

I know. Dealing with spiritual prophetic passages tend to have that effect.

Post #39

Thank you for this admission!
But now that you have admitted that you are aware that your conclusions are "flatly contrary to about a fourth of the Old Testament, more or less," my work is finished.

Post #40

You're quite welcome. I don't have a problem admitting my position at all Biblewriter.

 

[Douggg]

^
Now, now, boys. Go and play outside.

You could add Westminster Presbyterian to the list.

Okay, it only took 4 or 5 pages to get that in.....

I personally am amazed by the number of denominations holding the amil view. It makes a big difference when a futurist like me starts discussing end times with a fellow Christian - if I am not aware of that the person who I am addressing is amil, who is probably going to be hostile or argumentative to what a futurist would see as the very basics.

I am just pointing this out to be aware of the friction that could come out of nowhere. That was partial purpose of the thread.


Doug

 

[shturt678]

Bbilewriter regarding a minor matter with IPet.1:2 ... The readers of this passage were "Diaspora foreigners," their election had made them such. "Of Diaspora" places them in contrast, not just with non-believing Jews, but also with all who are unbelieving and non-elect, most of whom WERE PAGANS. in fact, it is impossible to say that one kind of Jews constitutes "a Diaspora" among other Jews. any perversions as heartfully refutable. Hope this helps.

 

[ebedmelech]

Bbilewriter regarding a minor matter with IPet.1:2 ... The readers of this passage were "Diaspora foreigners," their election had made them such. "Of Diaspora" places them in contrast, not just with non-believing Jews, but also with all who are unbelieving and non-elect, most of whom WERE PAGANS. in fact, it is impossible to say that one kind of Jews constitutes "a Diaspora" among other Jews. any perversions as heartfully refutable. Hope this helps.

This is the observation I'm trying to make. It cannot be addressed to Jews because Peter has been instructed by God about this in his vision in Act 10. God then sends him to Cornelius...a Gentile.

Who can forget Paul confronting Peter about this in Gaatians 2? So Peter is not writng to Jews exclusively...there's no way.

This is why those who are "scattered" as Peter says are of the persecution that came in Acts 8. They were scattered from the Church in Jerusalem.

From there they went to Samaria and throughout Judea, and the the Holy Spirit calls for Paul and Barnabus into Asia.

 

[Interplanner]

Well said, EbedM

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is a list I got from wikipedia of amilleninal denominations. Does anyone care to add to the list?

Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Ortodox
Roman Catholic Church
Lutheran
Reformed
Anglican
Methodist
Amish
Old Order Mennonite
Conservative Mennonites
Churches of Christ
Christian Church/Disciples of Christ
Christian churches and churches of Christ
Association of Grace Baptist Churches in England

What about Presbyterian?


Doug

Very interesting. I didn't realize the Amill view was that popular.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Here is a list I got from wikipedia of amilleninal denominations. Does anyone care to add to the list?

Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Ortodox
Roman Catholic Church
Lutheran
Reformed
Anglican
Methodist
Amish
Old Order Mennonite
Conservative Mennonites
Churches of Christ
Christian Church/Disciples of Christ
Christian churches and churches of Christ
Association of Grace Baptist Churches in England

What about Presbyterian?


Doug

I think the Pentecostals are non-amillennial - from the church I used to attend (statement of faith or creed):
The Lord Jesus Christ – His humanity, deity, virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death for the sins of the world, resurrection for our justification, Ascension to the Father’s right hand, and personal return to reign upon earth.

 

[BABerean2]

Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
(See John 5:27-30.)

Pastor Steve Gregg on Revelation 20

.

 

[TribulationSigns]

First, the key word I am seeing here is "opinions!" Opinions are seldom the same. Not to sound arrogant, but God's word is not subject to anyone's opinions, including mine. There are entirely too many "opinions" in the church and not enough acceptance of the "witness of Scripture." In other words, acceptance of man's opinion of what Scripture means, and not of what Scripture actually says. I see very little Biblical validation of the different views held, only a lot of vain justifications of them (Formula: God said A and B, but He actually meant C.) In reality, if we accept what God actually said, then there is no reason for an added personal opinion. God said that Christ came and established His Kingdom, rules in it as Lord now, and those who are saved live and reign with Him in this established New Testament Israel. There's no need for opinions of Him coming to establish and reign in another Kingdom on earth. God's word explicitly says He is reigning now and His kingdom is now, and His people reign with him in that kingdom. Man's personal opinions about another millennial period is a private interpretation, not something validated by His word.

Romans 3:4

• "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

Let God's word always be counted as the unassailable truth, and man's word contradicting it must be seen for what it is. A lie! Or to put it another way, every man's declaration, opinion or interpretation that contradicts God's word is false. This sound judgment between God's word and man's is what Christians are lacking today. Not deeming words that contradict God's word to be a lie, but rather just another possible view, a valid opinion or at best, misguided! Thinking truth uncharitable, it is never a lie, which is what it actually is. People as so qick to accept unbiblical (unvalidated) views so that they can "continue" to espouse their views without condemnation, censure or reprobation. But that doesn't make it an honest difference of opinion among Christians, it is a form of deceit or willful dishonesty. That's not a popular thing to say, but I believe that it is a very accurate depiction of much of the church today.

Secondly, why is there such a haze over the millennial period where it's particularly unclear what is the truth? For example, people like Douggg with his OP is trying to invalid amillennialism based on which church are teaching it.

Here's my take. The haze over the millennial understanding is a man made fog. An obfuscation of truth by means of selective (dishonest) handling of Scriptures that pertain to it. I know Christians like to say it's just an "honest difference of opinion", but there's really nothing honest about it, particularly from those who have studied the issue for years. Actually, it's not really unclear where the truth is (my opinion), it's just that people are carnal by nature and most don't really want the truth, they want justification of what they have been tauught or for what they believe. Therefore,whatever view that best conforms to what they have been taught, they readily accept despite the FACT that there is really no real biblical justification for it. I say unequivocally that there is absolutely no "real" Biblical justification for Premillennialism, Preterism or Postmillennialism because God's Word doesn't ever contradict itself or teach two entirely different views of the millennium. God being infallible, at best only one eschatology can be correct, and "by definition" that would be the one that Christ taught--which is today labeled Amillennialism. No other eschatology passes the "what God actually said, and prophesy fulfills" test. All the others fail miserably and are based on worldviews, assumptions, subjection, conjecture and speculation. If the Lord didn't say it, and Scripture doesn't confirm it, then it's man's private interpretations like I often saw men doing it here.

Ezekiel 22:28

• "And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken."

If God's word doesn't say it, then the doctrine is suspect right off the top. We could give example after example of professing Christians ignoring clarity, but for the sake of brevity, I'll note only one. In Premillennialism there are millions of Christian evangelicals, led by their Zionist false prophets, who teach that the nation of Israel, who rejects Christ, are "still" God's chosen people, when Scripture "Very Clearly" teaches that with the rejection of Christ national Israel fell as God's congregation and the kingdom was taken from them and given to the church. Despite the fact that this is all very clear in Scripture, these professing Christians feign ignorance or twist God's word so that it really has no meaning concerning God's judgment, the children destroyed, the curse of blindness, His going to the Gentiles and His kingdom taken from National Israel. It's as if God never said any of these things, and that so they may feel justified in holding opposing views. The point is, the fact that they delude themselves doesn't then mean that it's not "very clear" in Scripture that this teaching that Christ will come again to establish an earthly kingdom is in error. It only reveals how national Israel isn't the only people with an obstinate heart, that in their deceit they reject the truth. The church is following in the same footsteps, confirming that there is nothing new under the sun. Even in the parables Christ taught, if we are honest with ourselves, their meaning is abundantly clear, but only if we have the Spirit of truth to recognize truth. The parable of the Vineyard, where the householder has farming stewards who killed His son (Matthew 21:33-43), and the householder returns and destroys the wicked farmers who killed his son, and then let out his vineyard to other farmers. The meaning is clear to everyone except those who will not receive its message "because" they don't really like what it says. That's the haze over the Scriptures, the dark cloud of obscurity brought about by the man himself.

If anyone wants to know the Truth about Historical Amillennialism may read the following article:

Amillennialism: A Word Direct From The Scriptures

 

[parousia70]

But there is no way around the fact that your position is based, in its entirety, on interpretations of the meanings of various scriptures, while mine is based on their explicit wording.

Except of course when it comes to such explicit wording as: "must shortly take place", "the time is at hand", "it is near", "it is about to be", "in a very little while", "will not delay" & "He is coming soon"... then you're position MANDATES a spiritualized, elasticized, non literal, INTERPRETATION, instead of simply accepting the EXPLICIT WORDING.

But hey, I guess it's ok when YOU do it, right?

 

[Biblewriter]

Except of course when it comes to such explicit wording as: "must shortly take place", "the time is at hand", "it is near", "it is about to be", "in a very little while", "will not delay" & "He is coming soon"... then you're position MANDATES a spiritualized, elasticized, non literal, INTERPRETATION, instead of simply accepting the EXPLICIT WORDING.

But hey, I guess it's ok when YOU do it, right?

But you insist, without a particle of scriptural proof, in insisting upon INTERPRETING these clauses in human terms, rather than in divine terms. The hard fact is, that you are again simply insisting on YOUR INTERPRETATION of what these words mean.