amillennialism?

[thereselittleflower]

That's exactly my point, there's the words of men (such as myself, and in your case, a woman) and then there's the word of God.

I am glad we agree!

But here is where I think you run smack dab into a big, fat cement wall.

Since your best interpretation of scripture is only that of man in the end, then you can never truly expect , in this life, to have the right understanding of scripture . . .
At the best, you can only hope you got it right, knowing full well you could have got it wrong.


Peace

 

[ETide]

Etide,
I believe these scriptures seriously say 'Yes' the Gentiles/Nations (Greek: Ethnos) are no longer deceived by Satan.

As I mentioned, for the believer (ie, one who embraces Christ), this is true, satan is powerless, although even believers are still called to put on the full armour of God.

Why would that be ? Why would believers need to put on the full armour of God in order to stand against the wiles of the DEVIL if he is bound and unable to deceive the nations ?

Peter says to be sober (to Christians !) because their adversary the DEVIL roams about as a roaring lion. So why is that if he is bound ?

James tells Christians to resist the devil and he will flee from you.. etc etc

As for the unbeliever, we're told that if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, whom the god of this world has blinded (ie, deceived)..

John tells us that the whole world lieth in wickedness.

So again, are the religions of this world preaching truth or are they deceived..?

As mentioned, I agree that satan is powerless with respect to the believers AS LONG AS the believer has on the full armour of God.

(I'm not a Universalist, so the fact that the millions and millions of Gentiles who have not been deceived by Satan since the cross may only represent a minority portion of all humankind, they do represent the binding of Satan via the cross from their near complete blindness that had them groping in complete darkness prior to the cross).

Again let me say that I agree, for the Lord says that if the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed, because those that believe on Him shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free.

As far as light goes, Jesus is that true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, but some me love darkness for their deeds are evil.. that's just plain disobedience..

But how about the wheat and the tares..? An enemy has sown the tares..

How about the sower and the seed.. it tells us that when some hear the word of the kingdom and do not understand it, then cometh the wicked one and takes it away that which was sown in his heart..

How about the beast and the false prophet, and the man of sin, who's coming is after the working of satan with all power and signs and lying wonders..? Whom the Lord will destroy with the brightness of his coming..?

 

[ETide]

But when it comes to the attributes and characteristics of either Pretrib or modern Premillennialism; the early Christians, and fundamentally all Christians prior to the 19th century remain silent.

So it is really not so much 'what they say' and do we belive the writings of these men....but shall we put so much faith in the writings of 19th century men and their later followers who have popularized things that were silent and non-existant throughout the first 19 centuries of Christianity?

Sometimes silence is worth more than what is spoken as to determining truth.

Dave, let me first preface this by saying that it isn't fair to lump all millennialists into the 19th century crowd as you're implying here.

Also, I could care less about the the Left Behind crowd and all of the hype of the modern dispies.. they're men like you and I.

You mentioned in the beginning of this thread how that people would most likely see a lot of villianizing the amillennial position, I truly hope that I have not done that but rather have spoken the truth in love as far as my ability in Christ affords it. Although when you post something like this, it seems to be the exact thing that you mentioned.. in my opinion, it's villianizing the other side of the fence because not all folks believe in the same way. I certainly do not put myself into these categories, nor do I claim to have full understanding in all of these matters.

With that said, I also thank you folks who have shared early writings which indicate the belief of some of these things to predate Augustine. That's interesting to me, so I thank the folks that have shared these things.

Let me say it one more time in a different way.

You probably have some laundry list of disgust against some aspects of premillennialism as you understand it. That's fine, but please do not assume that all of us think and believe in the same way that you're implying in your threads. Thanks for that. I simply want to know the truth of the scriptures and share things pertaining to the scriptures.

However, just for the record, here's a link to Irenaeus book 5, chapter 35, which speaks of the millennial reign of Christ as future rather than coming into effect after the first advent of Christ.

The title alone says it clearly, but the whole can be read to see that a future millennial kingdom of Christ was believed early on.

Chapter XXXV.-He Contends that These Testimonies Already Alleged Cannot Be Understood Allegorically of Celestial Blessings, But that They Shall Have Their Fulfilment After the Coming of Antichrist, and the Resurrection, in the Terrestrial Jerusalem. To the Former Prophecies He Subjoins Others Drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse of John.

 

[ETide]

I am glad we agree!

But here is where I think you run smack dab into a big, fat cement wall.

Since your best interpretation of scripture is only that of man in the end, then you can never truly expect , in this life, to have the right understanding of scripture . . .
At the best, you can only hope you got it right, knowing full well you could have got it wrong.


Peace

Let me simply say that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is not at all difficult to understand, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

The bible is also perfectly clear in many other instances pertaing to our faith, hope, and of the perfect love of Christ.

Although at the same time the scriptures are living and powerful, and yes, I believe that they're limitless in their ability to speak to the hearts of God's people..

Take your previous example of adultery for a minute.. would you claim to have exhausted all of scripture to the extent that you can speak on that subject with Godspeed understanding and knowledge..? Seriously..

I would agree that there are aspects of adultery which are perfectly cut and dried, easily entreated and meant to be obeyed with all diligence and heartfelt love for Christ.. although at the same time the subject can move into spiritual aspects of adultery and speak with power and life in other dimensions that relate to the same fundamental.

This is what I mean when I say that the scriptures are limitless. Again, if you can claim to have exhausted (and I'm not suggesting that you have) all of the scriptures then you're clearly beyond what I would ever claim.

With subjects such as this, I believe that it's no different. Some things are hard to be understood as Peter reminds us, although there are the fundamental truths and then the vast and limitless depths which we can explore to our enjoyment of the scriptures.

I truly believe that the key is our love for Christ and making sure that He is the living head and center of all our efforts. His love is certainly beyond this, as it goes beyond knowledge, and it will take the ages of eternity to plumb the breadth and length and depth and height of it.

This is the miracle of the word of God in my estimation. There are foundational things for us on the surface, although as we continue to search His living and abiding word.. we can only conclude that we've only scratched the surface.

 

[Dave Taylor]

Dave, let me first preface this by saying that it isn't fair to lump all millennialists into the 19th century crowd as you're implying here.

If were talking about millennialist who see a Pre-millennial period where there will be no sin or death after the 2nd Coming; and it truly is a literal 1000 years of righteousness enjoyed by only the redeemed and their Lord upon the Earth, where the bondage of curruption and the curse of creation have been removed; then I agree.

Those type of Pre-millennialists should not be lumped into the 19th century crowd. However, it is very, very difficult to find those types of Pre-millennialists prior to the 19th century.

It's not that all Pre-millennialists hold to the 19th century teachings of Darby (and later teachings of Scofield, Larkin, Lindsay, Lahaye, etc...). Sure there are some who don't. Some who disagree on alot of their points....but the origin remains pretty much the same. The influence of what Darby created initiated the modern Premill view; which differs hugely from the early ECF views of those labeled as Chiliasts or Millennarians.

Again, my point was to focus on the topic mentioned earier on the Binding of Satan-When? History from the 1-3 century churches, and predominately through the nicene, post-nicene, middle-age show it to be at the 1st Advent, as described in Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, Luke 11:21, etc.

It was not a 'creation of Augustine' as is often mis-credited.

Also, I could care less about the the Left Behind crowd and all of the hype of the modern dispies.. they're men like you and I.

Good to note that. I will always be quick to admit my typing has no authority...and be glad to put the focus back to the scriptures...but I will also make use of the writings of the church; to see what the bulk of Christianity has believed and how they have interpretted difficult passages throughout the ages....to check how I understand and interpret. As I said before, 'silence' or lack of confirmation of doctrines and teachings sometimes say more for the invalidness of a modern view than anything that is actually written.

You mentioned in the beginning of this thread how that people would most likely see a lot of villianizing the amillennial position, I truly hope that I have not done that but rather have spoken the truth in love as far as my ability in Christ affords it.

I'm seeing fruit come from your basket. It is just typical, to see alot of Premillennialists, especially dispensationalists, tend to villianize Amill because 1) they don't understand it, 2) it is not 'their' view, 3) they have been taught by their teacher to villianize it.
When I was a dispensational Premillennialists, I was ignorant of Amill, but had been taught that it was a heretical theory of spiritualizing everything and mishandling scripture in a liberal and nigh sacreligous manner. That is far from the truth....it it just misunderstanding based on either parrotted ignorance and unfamiliarity, or simply lack of effort to be familiarized and to truly understand.

Although when you post something like this, it seems to be the exact thing that you mentioned.. in my opinion, it's villianizing the other side of the fence because not all folks believe in the same way. I certainly do not put myself into these categories, nor do I claim to have full understanding in all of these matters.

I apologize for any reverse villianizing. What 'gets my goat' so to speak, is when these little quips are carelessly thrown around as if they are accepted fact, like "Augustine invented Amill" and "the early church was mostly Premill" and "Amill spiritualizes or interprets away all the scriptures", etc...
Fundamentally, Amill does one thing. It unites all peoples regardless of race or birthdate, who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb; and sees the 2nd Coming as the clymactic finale of mortal history, sin, death, and corruption....not simply another blip on the timeline of mortal events.

With that said, I also thank you folks who have shared early writings which indicate the belief of some of these things to predate Augustine. That's interesting to me, so I thank the folks that have shared these things.

I agree with what you said earlier too, from the ECF perspective. Some of what they taught was bad theology. Some was downright absurd and anathema. I would never point to them, in leiu of the Bible itself, to find doctrine. What I see as their primary useage, however, is to get a feel for 'how' the Christians of each epoch or generation in our past was understanding, interpretting, and receiving the very same scriptures that we deal with today. I look for 'silence'. To me 'silence' is a huge marker of truth....because I do not believe God has hidden huge and important truths for 1900 years...only waiting for a cat like Darby to come along and 'open up the box of understanding and revelation'.

When speaking of His return, Jesus said, "Behold, I have told you"....I believe Him.

Let me say it one more time in a different way.

You probably have some laundry list of disgust against some aspects of premillennialism as you understand it. That's fine, but please do not assume that all of us think and believe in the same way that you're implying in your threads. Thanks for that. I simply want to know the truth of the scriptures and share things pertaining to the scriptures.

I agree. When I 'generalize' it is only in including the main points and tenants that Premillennialism generally accepts and teaches. I'm sure there are various segements and flavors and approaches that don't fall under the general Premill umbrella. I look forward to seeing your particular expectation evolve and expand.

My biggest curiousity with any flavor of Premill, whether the general majority view, or any lesser or eclective derivative, is what are the attributes and characteristics of the Earth -AFTER THE 2nd Advent-.

However, just for the record, here's a link to Irenaeus book 5, chapter 35, which speaks of the millennial reign of Christ as future rather than coming into effect after the first advent of Christ.
The title alone says it clearly, but the whole can be read to see that a future millennial kingdom of Christ was believed early on.

I agree that Irenaeus held a future 1000 year reign.
(I should have said that before)
So did Justin Martyr and a handful of other pre-Nicene writers.

Are you supprised I admit that? You shouldn't be...were looking for truth and proper understanding, right, not to avoid or hide form it.

The fundamental important think however, is not 'did some Prenicene writer believe in a 1000 year period after the 2nd Coming'.

The fundamental point, should be...."what were the attributes and characteristics following the 2nd Coming.....in this 1000 year period they expected."

Were they anything like what modern Premillennialism teaches us today to expect and look for? (No)

However, if you look at "the characteristics and attributes" of the ECF who held a future 1000 year kindgdom view, it is starkly different that most "characteristics and attributes" that are taught within Premillennialism today.

That was my point....and the Binding of Satan aspect itself, shows that to be evident...both pre-dating Augustine by centuries with Irenaeus, and comeing from Irenaeus who was a Millennialist.

Irenaeus and J.M. and most of the pre-nicene fathers who were Millennarian, were so because of their faulty expectation of the 7day 7000 year model...which they thought was about to skip from day 6 to day 7 in their lifetime, under the oppression of Rome....they really thought the 2nd Coming was right around the corner as the 6000 year mark closed in.

But if you look at the attributes and characteristics of what they taught about how the Earth and the kingdom would be like at the 2nd Coming, and thereafter, you will find Amillennialism.

No death. No sin. No rebellion. No future gog/magog battle. No multiple resurrections. No multiple judgement days.

Their Premill Kingdom, was pretty much a time of the redeemed only, as a precursor period to the final eternal state...one without any wickedness or racial difference between Israelites and Gentiles, or return to temples and animal sacrifices....(all aspects that magically started to show up in the 19th century re-birthing of Premill)

p.s. Thanks for such a careful and honest reply. We have alot of fruitful dialog in front of us. I was Dispensational Premill for 20 years, and following my abandoning of Pretrib and Dispensationalism, spent quite some time researching and studying the 'Historic Premill' variant, and the writings of George Eldon Ladd, and other modern writers who distance themselves to various degrees from dispensationalism and pretrib.

I look forward to seeing how your particular understanding is grounded. Perhaps you might even consider starting a new thread that explains what you yourself (so we don't mislabel or misassume) believe are the attributes and characteristics of your expectation following the 2nd Coming and your understanding of the 1000 years thereafter.

 

[ETide]

Dave,

It's good to have this type of discussion as it can be fruitful rather than just throwing stones at each other.. lol

At this point in my life, I simply believe that the events recorded for us in Rev 20 are future and not in the here and now so to speak.

This is the largest diverging factor with the two camps as far as I can tell.. ie, amillennialism is basically saying that we are already in the millennial kingdom of Christ, that satan is bound, and the first resurrection pertains to something other than a literal physical resurrection of the dead..

Is that correct, or am I totally out in left field on this one..?

The millennial position simply regards the events of Rev 20 as future.

Sure, there are many many other things to consider of course, although I can't imagine anything more distinctive than one camp saying it is now versus the other camp saying that it is future.

The issues being those spoken of in Rev 20, ie the binding of satan so that he is unable to deceive the nations, the thousand year reign of Christ as it is described to be with those (although not necessarily those alone) who had not worshipped the beast or his image, who had not received his mark, and who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus Christ. These are said to live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, ie, after they were beheaded..ie, dead.

This is called the first resurrection.. again, in my estimation a literal and future physical resurrection of the dead.. Not an allegorical resurrection pertaining to Christians in the state of being born again in Christ.

So, this is the major dividing line as far as I can tell.. is that correct in your mind, or is it something vastly different than this.. ?

 

[Dave Taylor]

I shared yesterday some writings from the 1-3rd century AD that showed the Amill idea of Satan being bound at the cross, not after the future 2nd Advent, was not a creation of Augustine; but the only interpretation of this event held in the writings of the pre-nicene church.

Another topic that Premillennialism differs with Amillennialism on is the future expectation of a rebuilt earthly stone temple, and a reinstitution of animal sacrifices after the 2nd Coming.

Opposition to this Premill notion too, is not an Agustinian creation, but was widely held by the ancient Christian writers...of all early centuries...both pre-dating Augustine to the 1st century, and far afterward his time-period.

I thought I would share some of those citations as well...as to what early Christians expected in regards to the Temple; and how it was a stark difference in expectation that what Modern Premill and Zionism advances.

I'll start it as a new thread at:
1-3rd Century Christian writings (pre-Augustine) on the future Temple

 

[Dave Taylor]

Dave,

It's good to have this type of discussion as it can be fruitful rather than just throwing stones at each other.. lol

I agree completely.

At this point in my life, I simply believe that the events recorded for us in Rev 20 are future and not in the here and now so to speak.

I can understand. There was a time when I thought Revelation 20 was all future as well. That was back when I thought Revelation was a strict chronology, instead of a series of several visions describing various events both historic, near-term, and far future; and all culminating upon the 2nd Advent.

This is the largest diverging factor with the two camps as far as I can tell.. ie, amillennialism is basically saying that we are already in the millennial kingdom of Christ, that satan is bound, and the first resurrection pertains to something other than a literal physical resurrection of the dead..

Is that correct, or am I totally out in left field on this one..?

I think that is a pretty fair assessment, but it isn't really the same as one would see those things from a Premill perspective.

Satan being bound, from a Premill perspective, means he is literally in a hole with a chain keeping him in solitary confinement so that he cannot deceive any single individual.

From the Amill perspective, the verse isn't intended to be received in that totalitarian manner. It doesn't say 'Satan is bound from deceiving every human being" from doing anything sinful.

It simply says, "Bound from deceiving the [Ethnos] Nations/Gentiles".

From an Amill perspective, that is exactly what occured at the 1st Advent. Prior to it, all the nations/gentiles were in darkness, and were following after false gods. Rarely was there ever any gentiles to speak of, who followed the true God.

Since the Cross, and Jesus coming to Bind Satan, the Strong man, and spoil the goods of his house, the ethnos of the world have not been blocked from having access to the gospel and to Christ, and millions upon millions of Gentiles have turned from prior idolatry to follow the Lord. Satan could no longer stop them from doing that. Christ bound him, and that allowed the gospel to both go out, and to be received by millions of Gentiles.

Not all Gentiles, for we know that all humanity will not be saved, only a minority portion.....remember, "narrow is the way, and straight is the gate to eternal life, and few find it".

Going on,
There are other passages in the NT that speaks of being raised from the dead as being symbolic of the new-birth experience....and when you compare that to exactly what the '2nd Death really is', it makes perfect sense.

The millennial position simply regards the events of Rev 20 as future.

Sure, there are many many other things to consider of course, although I can't imagine anything more distinctive than one camp saying it is now versus the other camp saying that it is future.

The issues being those spoken of in Rev 20, ie the binding of satan so that he is unable to deceive the nations, the thousand year reign of Christ as it is described to be with those (although not necessarily those alone) who had not worshipped the beast or his image, who had not received his mark, and who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus Christ. These are said to live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, ie, after they were beheaded..ie, dead.

But if we considered the possibility of Revelation 20 being a panoramic view of the NT era between the advents...we could see Satan being bound from deceiving the Gentiles as being representative of what has and is occuring with the outgoing of the Gospel unto salvation for millions of Gentiles since Calvary.

We could see those who were martyred for not worshipping Satan (fundamentally that is what opposition to Christ is), as not being representative of a 7-year trib-saints group of martyrs, but the all-encompassing throng of maryrs including Stephen, and Justin Martyr, and the 11 disciples, etc...

They are now living and reigning with Christ in Heaven...(unless you hold to the Seventh Day Adventist theory of soul-sleep)

What the later part of Revelation 20 shows us, is yet future.
The final battle between good and evil that will occur at the 2nd Coming, and the final judgement that will occur at the 2nd Coming, and the final destiny being set for all humanity based on who is and who is not recorded in the Lamb's book of life.

This is called the first resurrection.. again, in my estimation a literal and future physical resurrection of the dead.. Not an allegorical resurrection pertaining to Christians in the state of being born again in Christ.

And there was a time when I too, thought this way. But even now, I will definately say I expect there is coming a future day, at the 2nd Coming, when there will be a literal bodily physical resurrection of mankind.

I see Job 14, 19; and Isaiah 25:8, 26:19, and Daniel 12:3, and Luke 14:14, and John 5:29, and John 6:39-40, and John 11:24, and Acts 24:15, and and Romans 8:23, and I Corinthians 15, and I Thess 4, etc...all speaking of the the future literal physical resurrection of mankind.

(I just don't think that is specifically what John is talking about in Revelation 20 with he speaks of either the '1st Resurrection' or the '2nd Death'.) John covers the mention of the resurrection from the dead in both chapter 11 at the last trumpet in verse 11:18, and in Revelation 20:11-15.

So, this is the major dividing line as far as I can tell.. is that correct in your mind, or is it something vastly different than this.. ?

Revelation 20's interpretation is definately a stickling point between the two views. If you interpret Revelation 20 in any way other than the Premill interpretation, there becomes ZERO support elsewhere in the New Testament writings that speak about a 1000 year period after the 2nd Coming which includes wicked rebels who survive the 2nd Coming and/or are exempt from the judgement and destruction that accompanies it.

As I have come to realize, Revelation is a highly symbolic and figurative book; and not a highly literal book. The teachings of Jesus and the NT epistles are much more literal and clear in nature, and much less symbolic and figurative. I personally, consider Revelation in light of how other more clear 2nd Coming passages are presented throughout the Bible, then see how Revelation harmonizes with those....instead of starting with a specific interpretation of Revelation (aka strictly literal) and then trying to make other conflicting NT passages conform to that initial interpretation.

For me, I don't see how one single wicked person will be able to stand at the awesome glory, power, and respendancy of His holiness that will be revealed to the Earth at His return. I can't imagine how they would escape it, and I can't see the scriptures allowing them to escape from it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Again, this makes a good point.. it really doesn't mean a whole lot if Irenaeus says something or not, he is not God.

Well, that wasn't my point . . my point had to do with the idea of Irenaeus saying something in isolation from the rest of the Church or even with a smattering of one here or there. . .

But that does not man that what Irenaeus said should be discarded on all counts or that it doesn't mean a whole lot. . What he writes does mean something.

So you simply took my words too far to an extreme.

And again therese, you speak as if the RCC is 'the' church of God, when you speak of the church rejecting certain things..

Well, that is what I believe though probably not in the way you think.

But I was also speaking of the Church in the beginning (whether you agree it is the same as the Catholic Church today or not wouldn't matter).

but you know what.. they're men too.. fallible men..

Of course they are! That is why we don't look to any one man as being personally infallible.

But we do believe that the Holy Spirit continues to inspire the successors of the Apostles collectively to protect the deposit of faith WHEN NECESSARY in the same way He inspired the Apostles themselves when leading them into all truth as Jesus promised which they delivered to their successors and the Church whch we call the Deposit of Faith.

So, where the men are indeed PERSONALLY fallible, just as the APOSTLES themselves were PERSONALLY fallible, when it comes to the DEPOSIT OF FAITH given by the Aposltes, we believe that collectively they are infallibly guided in the protection of that sam deposit of faith just as the APOSTLES were infallibly led into the All Truth, the Deposit of Faith.

We believe that God did not simply lead the Apostles into the ALL Truth only to leave the Church without men whom the Holy Spirit infallibly leads in the keeping and understanding of that Same All Truth after the Apostles were gone.

That just isn't logical . . it just isn't reasonable . . it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I know that the catholics believe in apostolic succession and that they're the true church of God etc etc etc.. although that's not the church of God as scripture describes it.. although I'm sure that you believe otherwise..

Well, quite frankly, for all my life, until a few years ago, that is what I believed about the Catholic Church too . . . until I began to dig deep into history to discover how the Early Church believed, worshiped, taught, lived their lives . . . I sas stunned to see the same doctrines then as the Catholic Church believes and teaches today . . but I still wasn't convinced. . .

ETide . . I came into the Catholic Church after 3 years of intensive study, sure the Catholic Church of today would faile to measure up in some significant way, but slowly, steadily, as I continued to study both the Early Church and what the various churches believed and taught today, and prayed and earnestly sought God about this, the field became narrower and narrower until there were only two Churches left . . the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. . . Then there was one left . .



In the beginning of this process, I had asked God what I should do about what I was discovering about the Early Church and the obvious similarities between it and the Otthodox and Catholic Churches today . . I was driving as I was contemplating this when I asked this - I was really feeling like I was standing at a crossroads and needed direction. . . Within minutes I passed an Adventist Church with a sgin out front that quoted a verse from the bible that said:

Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths where the good way lies; and walk ye in it, and you will find rest for your souls.

Jer 6:16




​

I was stunned.



And that is exactly what I spent the rest of the 3 years doing . . exactly that.

​

That is why I am Catholic today ETide.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Dave, let me first preface this by saying that it isn't fair to lump all millennialists into the 19th century crowd as you're implying here.

ETide, while that is true in some sense, the vast majority of Premillenialists are dispensationalist in their way of thinking on the key points and so are necessarily lumped in with the 19th century crowd in some manner.

The beliefs that there is a 7 year tribulation, a restoring of Israel to the land to rule the world from, the rebuilding of the temple, a rapture associated with the tribulation in some fashion (notably pre-trib, but also mid trib and post trib). .

These are all key elements of the premillenialist variety that originated with the 19th century crowd that did not exist prior to dispenationalism.

If you believe these, then you are associated with this 19th century crowd.

Also, I could care less about the the Left Behind crowd and all of the hype of the modern dispies.. they're men like you and I.

You mentioned in the beginning of this thread how that people would most likely see a lot of villianizing the amillennial position, I truly hope that I have not done that but rather have spoken the truth in love as far as my ability in Christ affords it. Although when you post something like this, it seems to be the exact thing that you mentioned.. in my opinion, it's villianizing the other side of the fence because not all folks believe in the same way. I certainly do not put myself into these categories, nor do I claim to have full understanding in all of these matters.

With that said, I also thank you folks who have shared early writings which indicate the belief of some of these things to predate Augustine. That's interesting to me, so I thank the folks that have shared these things.

Let me say it one more time in a different way.

You probably have some laundry list of disgust against some aspects of premillennialism as you understand it. That's fine, but please do not assume that all of us think and believe in the same way that you're implying in your threads. Thanks for that. I simply want to know the truth of the scriptures and share things pertaining to the scriptures.

However, just for the record, here's a link to Irenaeus book 5, chapter 35, which speaks of the millennial reign of Christ as future rather than coming into effect after the first advent of Christ.

The title alone says it clearly, but the whole can be read to see that a future millennial kingdom of Christ was believed early on.

Chapter XXXV.-He Contends that These Testimonies Already Alleged Cannot Be Understood Allegorically of Celestial Blessings, But that They Shall Have Their Fulfilment After the Coming of Antichrist, and the Resurrection, in the Terrestrial Jerusalem. To the Former Prophecies He Subjoins Others Drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse of John.

Who is "He" here that is being spoken of as "he contends" ?

I couldn't find the link you gave either



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Let me simply say that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is not at all difficult to understand, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

If it is so simple to understand that each person can understand it easily for themselves without needing instruction and help in interpreting the scriptures, then why is there so much disagreement about several important parts within Protestantism today?

The great experiment of Protestantism which teaches that every man can interpret and understand the scriptures for himself has yielded a plethora of "churches" who disagree on some basic element(s).

Just this evidence from such a belief being held and taught by various groups for the last 500 years invalidates this belief!

IF it was really so easy to understand one one's own, then there would be one set of beilefs regarding the Gospel of Christ salvation, etc, understood the same way, by all the varous groups within protestantism.

But we don't see that . . we see the opposite.

So the evidence goes against what you are claiming.

The bible is also perfectly clear in many other instances pertaing to our faith, hope, and of the perfect love of Christ.

It can be perfectly clear in some instances . . it can be very hidden or difficult to understand inothers.

Although at the same time the scriptures are living and powerful, and yes, I believe that they're limitless in their ability to speak to the hearts of God's people..

So, did the illustration I used mean absolutely nothing?

Take your previous example of adultery for a minute.. would you claim to have exhausted all of scripture to the extent that you can speak on that subject with Godspeed understanding and knowledge..? Seriously..

That does not answer my questions to you or my use of my illustration.

Did my illustration mean nothing?

I would agree that there are aspects of adultery which are perfectly cut and dried, easily entreated and meant to be obeyed with all diligence and heartfelt love for Christ.. although at the same time the subject can move into spiritual aspects of adultery and speak with power and life in other dimensions that relate to the same fundamental.

That does not really answer my questions to you about it or address my illustration.


Can the command to not commit adultery mean one should or can commit adultery?

If the scriptures are limitless as you say, then it must be able to be understood that one can commit adultery.

If not, then the scriptures are not limitless.

You are claiming they are limitless, but you won't address this very specific illustration head on.

I take it to mean that this illustration is effective in showing your premise is faulty . . so the scriptures are NOT limitless contrary to your claim.

This is what I mean when I say that the scriptures are limitless. Again, if you can claim to have exhausted (and I'm not suggesting that you have) all of the scriptures then you're clearly beyond what I would ever claim.

That is not the point of my illustration ETide.

And if I compare what you just said above with what you said earlier which started this line of discussion, it appears to me that you are equivocating so naturally I am a little confused . .



This is what you said earlier:

I do not limit any book of the bible in any way.


​

This is what you are saying now:

I believe that they're limitless in their ability to speak to the hearts of God's people


​

So, are you agreeing that there are SOME legitimate limits on the word of God, the scriptures?

ie one cannot understand that "thou shalt not commit adultery" means adultery is permitted when it is clearly stated it is forbidden?

With subjects such as this, I believe that it's no different. Some things are hard to be understood as Peter reminds us, although there are the fundamental truths and then the vast and limitless depths which we can explore to our enjoyment of the scriptures. [.quote]

This was not what we were really talking about though . .

We were talking about the fact that there are catagories the words of scripture fall into . . at least two . . symbolic and literal.


Do we have agreement that these are valid catagories, classifications, which help us to properly understand scripture and avoid misunderstanding scripture?

I truly believe that the key is our love for Christ and making sure that He is the living head and center of all our efforts. His love is certainly beyond this, as it goes beyond knowledge, and it will take the ages of eternity to plumb the breadth and length and depth and height of it.

As much as I agree, I have to bring this back to the topic at hand. .

That is the right understanding of scripture. Right interpretation of prophecy and how catagories are inherently a part of scripture and how understanding which catagory the particular words of scripture we are reading fall into. helps us to undersatnd the words we are reading.

This is the miracle of the word of God in my estimation. There are foundational things for us on the surface, although as we continue to search His living and abiding word.. we can only conclude that we've only scratched the surface.

There are depths to the scriptures that have yet to be plumbed . . no argument from me on this.


But that is not what we are talking about here really. . we are talking about the right understanding of words of prophecy and how having a right understanding of what catagory those word fall into . . literal or symbolic, affect and helps our understanding of what those words of prophecy mean, and how a wrong undersatnding of what catagory they fall into (or a total ignoring of catagories altogether) leads to a wrong understanding of those words of prophecy.


Thsi is what we need to focus on.



Peace

 

[ETide]

As I have come to realize, Revelation is a highly symbolic and figurative book; and not a highly literal book. The teachings of Jesus and the NT epistles are much more literal and clear in nature, and much less symbolic and figurative. I personally, consider Revelation in light of how other more clear 2nd Coming passages are presented throughout the Bible, then see how Revelation harmonizes with those....instead of starting with a specific interpretation of Revelation (aka strictly literal) and then trying to make other conflicting NT passages conform to that initial interpretation.

Speaking of other NT passages which speak of His coming, I have brought up 2 Thess 2 a few times now, as we're told there that the Lord will destroy the man of sin with the brightness of His coming.. the man of sin whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders..

BUT, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Revelation 19 which I believe also speaks of the Lord coming.. specifically these verses..

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.

These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

My question is, how would you interpret these verses in Revelation 19 ? Past, present, or future ?

Do you believe that they're related to 2 Thess 2 ?

Do you consider them as already having taken place, and if so, when would that be..?

 

[ETide]

But I was also speaking of the Church in the beginning (whether you agree it is the same as the Catholic Church today or not wouldn't matter).

What matters therese, is that you have no way of knowing the body of Christ in its entirety, you would obviously need to see Christ in each member as that alone determines the body of Christ, those who He alone has sealed with His Spirit of promise, the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.

We believe that God did not simply lead the Apostles into the ALL Truth only to leave the Church without men whom the Holy Spirit infallibly leads in the keeping and understanding of that Same All Truth after the Apostles were gone.

That just isn't logical . . it just isn't reasonable . . it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

God doesn't need to operate in accordance with what you consider logical.

When we see the New Jerusalem as described in the Revelation, it has twelve foundations, and the names of the Apostles of the Lamb. This aligns perfectly with what Paul says of the church being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone..

ETide . . I came into the Catholic Church after 3 years of intensive study, sure the Catholic Church of today would faile to measure up in some significant way, but slowly, steadily, as I continued to study both the Early Church and what the various churches believed and taught today, and prayed and earnestly sought God about this, the field became narrower and narrower until there were only two Churches left . . the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. . . Then there was one left . .

therese, God adds members to His body as it pleases Himself according to 1 Cor 12. In Eph 1:13, Paul says that it was after we trusted in Christ, after we heard the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, and that after we believed, we were sealed (by God) with that Holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His glory.

The catholic church has no bearing on that at all.. you are either sealed by God with His Spirit or you are not.

 

[ETide]

If it is so simple to understand that each person can understand it easily for themselves without needing instruction and help in interpreting the scriptures, then why is there so much disagreement about several important parts within Protestantism today?

The gospel itself is not difficult to understand.. when a person hears the word of God, that can produce faith in a person..ie, faith comes by hearing.. and so when a person believes that God's Son died for their sin... it is accounted unto them for righteousness..

AND, we're told in Eph that it is after we trust in Christ, after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation..and after we believe, we are sealed (by God) with the spirit of promise.. He makes us children of God and brings us into His family..

NOW, that's just like a natural birth.. it's a spiritual birth in Christ although they are babes in Christ.. there's not a whole lot of knowledge yet..just like an infant.. but they're His..

This is why Peter tells us to desire the sincere milk of the word that we can GROW thereby.. we GROW in the GRACE and in the KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ.. and all of His children will ultimately grow up into Him, into that perfect man..

It's a lifelong process, once a person is sealed with His Spirit, then they need to feed on Christ and His word so that they can grow up into Him in all things. AND, let me add that FELLOWSHIP in the BODY OF CHRIST (ie, other members of the body) is very important for growing up into Him in all things.

The great experiment of Protestantism which teaches that every man can interpret and understand the scriptures for himself has yielded a plethora of "churches" who disagree on some basic element(s).

There's only ONE CHURCH therese, and it is HIS CHURCH, His body, He alone is building it, believer by believer.. all His people may not be at the same level of growth, although a person is either IN CHRIST or they are NOT..

Just this evidence from such a belief being held and taught by various groups for the last 500 years invalidates this belief!

Remember, there's also a lot of tares out there.. planted by the enemy.. they may look like Christians, they may profess Christ, but if they do not possess Christ within their earthen vessel, then they're not IN CHRIST, they're not members of His body.. AND.. even with the body of Christ there can be division, we're not always on the same page.. but that does not mean that they're not IN CHRIST.. all true Christians have been sealed by God with His Spirit..

IF it was really so easy to understand one one's own, then there would be one set of beilefs regarding the Gospel of Christ salvation, etc, understood the same way, by all the varous groups within protestantism.

Again, the gospel itself isn't difficult to understand or embrace.. it's the growing process which we often stumble over.. don't you remember being a teenager.

But we don't see that . . we see the opposite.

So the evidence goes against what you are claiming.

What I've been sharing here is not that difficult in my opinion therese.. this is growing in the grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ..

That does not answer my questions to you or my use of my illustration.

Did my illustration mean nothing?

I enjoyed your illustration, and I thought that I replied well enough for you to understand.. there's fundamental aspects of the word of God and in my estimation, it also is limitless in its ability to speak in accordance with any subject.. again, there's very foundational principles in the teaching of adultery.. although at the same time there are other vast areas of scripture relative to this fundamental topic.. this is my opinion therese, it's not that important..

Can the command to not commit adultery mean one should or can commit adultery?

I can't imagine where you're coming up with that..? There are clear fundamental aspects of the word of God and there are relative principles and facets which can take a lifetime to explore in the word of God.. that doesn't mean that a person can commit adultery.. ? ?

If the scriptures are limitless as you say, then it must be able to be understood that one can commit adultery.

If not, then the scriptures are not limitless.

You are claiming they are limitless, but you won't address this very specific illustration head on.

Again therese.. this is not that difficult a thing to grasp in my estimation.. although perhaps you're not getting the point that I'm trying to make.. and that's fine.. don't sweat it..

I take it to mean that this illustration is effective in showing your premise is faulty . . so the scriptures are NOT limitless contrary to your claim.

If your objective is to prove my premise is faulty therese, then that's fine.. I'm not interested in that.. I'm interested in discussng the aspects of our beliefs.

Let me cut this before it becomes way too long..

 

[Dave Taylor]

Speaking of other NT passages which speak of His coming, I have brought up 2 Thess 2 a few times now, as we're told there that the Lord will destroy the man of sin with the brightness of His coming.. the man of sin whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders..

BUT, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Revelation 19 which I believe also speaks of the Lord coming.. specifically these verses..

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.

These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

My question is, how would you interpret these verses in Revelation 19 ? Past, present, or future ?

Do you believe that they're related to 2 Thess 2 ?

Do you consider them as already having taken place, and if so, when would that be..?

ETide,
Yes,
I believe both passages are describing the future 2nd Advent of the Lord and His destruction of the wicked....with the word/sword of His mouth, in the winepress of the wrath of Almighty God.

Rev 19 shows the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent.

2 Thess 2:8 shows the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent; and points back to chapter 1's vision of the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent; and the 1st Thess epistle in chapter 4-5 which show the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent.


They describe the same destruction of the wicked at the 2nd Advent that Jesus described twice in Matthew 13, and several times in Matthew 24-25 and Luke 17.

 

[thereselittleflower]

What matters therese, is that you have no way of knowing the body of Christ in its entirety,

I never said I did. The Catholic Church doesn't claim it does either .. we know where the Church is, we don't know where the Church isn't.

you would obviously need to see Christ in each member as that alone determines the body of Christ, those who He alone has sealed with His Spirit of promise, the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.

This is why we can only know where She visibly is, not where She isn't.


Does that make sense?

God doesn't need to operate in accordance with what you consider logical.

Obviously, but He is a logical God and gave us reason and logic to help us understand and He tells us "come let us REASON together"

He does not ask us to put reason and logic into a garbage can somewhere . . these are gifts He has given man to use to help us understand Him.

When we see the New Jerusalem as described in the Revelation, it has twelve foundations, and the names of the Apostles of the Lamb. This aligns perfectly with what Paul says of the church being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone..

IT IS SYMBOLIC!

Do you see a physical building called "The Church" with the bodies of the Apostles laying underneath it as its foudation?

No . . .

The foundation is the TEACHING of the Apostles . not the Apostles themselves. . . the building is not a literal building just as the Apostles aren't a literal foundaiton.

therese, God adds members to His body as it pleases Himself according to 1 Cor 12. In Eph 1:13, Paul says that it was after we trusted in Christ, after we heard the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, and that after we believed, we were sealed (by God) with that Holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His glory.

OK . .but this does not establish any argument you have made in this thread that is contrary to my positions.

The catholic church has no bearing on that at all.. you are either sealed by God with His Spirit or you are not.

On that I wholeheartedly disagree.





But this thread is not about the Catholic Church, it is about amillenialism and premillenialism.


Shall we get back to that?



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

The gospel itself is not difficult to understand.. when a person hears the word of God, that can produce faith in a person..ie, faith comes by hearing.. and so when a person believes that God's Son died for their sin... it is accounted unto them for righteousness..

AND, we're told in Eph that it is after we trust in Christ, after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation..and after we believe, we are sealed (by God) with the spirit of promise.. He makes us children of God and brings us into His family..

NOW, that's just like a natural birth.. it's a spiritual birth in Christ although they are babes in Christ.. there's not a whole lot of knowledge yet..just like an infant.. but they're His..

This is why Peter tells us to desire the sincere milk of the word that we can GROW thereby.. we GROW in the GRACE and in the KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ.. and all of His children will ultimately grow up into Him, into that perfect man..

It's a lifelong process, once a person is sealed with His Spirit, then they need to feed on Christ and His word so that they can grow up into Him in all things. AND, let me add that FELLOWSHIP in the BODY OF CHRIST (ie, other members of the body) is very important for growing up into Him in all things.



There's only ONE CHURCH therese, and it is HIS CHURCH, His body, He alone is building it, believer by believer.. all His people may not be at the same level of growth, although a person is either IN CHRIST or they are NOT..



Remember, there's also a lot of tares out there.. planted by the enemy.. they may look like Christians, they may profess Christ, but if they do not possess Christ within their earthen vessel, then they're not IN CHRIST, they're not members of His body.. AND.. even with the body of Christ there can be division, we're not always on the same page.. but that does not mean that they're not IN CHRIST.. all true Christians have been sealed by God with His Spirit..



Again, the gospel itself isn't difficult to understand or embrace.. it's the growing process which we often stumble over.. don't you remember being a teenager.



What I've been sharing here is not that difficult in my opinion therese.. this is growing in the grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ..



I enjoyed your illustration, and I thought that I replied well enough for you to understand.. there's fundamental aspects of the word of God and in my estimation, it also is limitless in its ability to speak in accordance with any subject.. again, there's very foundational principles in the teaching of adultery.. although at the same time there are other vast areas of scripture relative to this fundamental topic.. this is my opinion therese, it's not that important..



I can't imagine where you're coming up with that..? There are clear fundamental aspects of the word of God and there are relative principles and facets which can take a lifetime to explore in the word of God.. that doesn't mean that a person can commit adultery.. ? ?



Again therese.. this is not that difficult a thing to grasp in my estimation.. although perhaps you're not getting the point that I'm trying to make.. and that's fine.. don't sweat it..



If your objective is to prove my premise is faulty therese, then that's fine.. I'm not interested in that.. I'm interested in discussng the aspects of our beliefs.

Let me cut this before it becomes way too long..

ETtide, I have been trying to establish some basis of common understanding between us regarding the nature of the scriptures . . . yet many times when I ask you a simple question that requires as simply straightforward answer, yes/no, I get instead a convoluted one . .

Sinc this is what is occuring over serveral posts now, I see no direct answers coming. . .

Are there catagories that different parts of scrpture fall in . . there are at least two . . literal and symbolic.

Do you agree?

Simply yes or no answer is all that is required . . but that has not been forthcoming.


When it is I will be happy to resume discussion with you about this . uUntil then, we have not established a common basis of understanding to progress from.



Peace

 

[ETide]

ETide,
Yes,
I believe both passages are describing the future 2nd Advent of the Lord and His destruction of the wicked....with the word/sword of His mouth, in the winepress of the wrath of Almighty God.

Rev 19 shows the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent.

2 Thess 2:8 shows the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent; and points back to chapter 1's vision of the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent; and the 1st Thess epistle in chapter 4-5 which show the wicked being destroyed at the 2nd Advent.


They describe the same destruction of the wicked at the 2nd Advent that Jesus described twice in Matthew 13, and several times in Matthew 24-25 and Luke 17.

Dave,

OK then, so we're on the same page so to speak with Revelation 19 and 2 Thess 2 being future.. ie, the coming of the Lord.

SO, if the beast and the false prophet are taken at the Lord's coming as described in Rev 19, then that obviously shows us that they're future realities.. agreed..?

Again, the beast and the false prophet must be future realities, as we see them taken and cast into a lake of fire at the Lord's coming..

THEN, Revelation 20 speaks of satan being bound for a thousand years so that he can not deceive the nations.. BUT.. it was the dragon (Satan) who gave the beast his power, his seat, and great authority according to Revelation 13..

AND, furthermore.. we read in Rev 20 that after the thousand years are ended, satan is released for a time and that he deceives the nations and gathers them together, and it says that they went up on the breadth of the earth and compassed the camp of the saints.. and that fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them..

Then, here's what I consider the important part.. it then says that the devil that decived them was cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet ARE..

So, how can we consider something like Rev 20 to be taking place NOW when it speaks of casting the devil into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet ARE, if the beast and the false prophet are not in the lake of fire yet.. ? ie, they are not cast there until the Lord comes as we see in Rev 19..

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this..

 

[ETide]

I never said I did. The Catholic Church doesn't claim it does either .. we know where the Church is, we don't know where the Church isn't.

So how do you know where the church (the body of Christ) is ? ? Can you see Christ in them.. ?

This is why we can only know where She visibly is, not where She isn't.

So again, what's your basis of "seeing" the body of Christ visibly ? Can you see Christ in them ?

I know that the Lord tells us that we can know them by their fruits.. although still.. we may not judge correctly all of the time either.. ie, professing Christ doesn't mean that they possess Christ.. there are those that manifest themselves as angels of light..

Does that make sense?

Not really, I'd like to hear how you can see the body of Christ..as you say, visibly..

Obviously, but He is a logical God and gave us reason and logic to help us understand and He tells us "come let us REASON together"

He does not ask us to put reason and logic into a garbage can somewhere . . these are gifts He has given man to use to help us understand Him.

Who said He did, I sure didn't.. what I said is that God does not need to operate in a way that YOU consider logical.. you're the one that suggested that there must be apostles today.. perhaps they have seen the risen Christ..

IT IS SYMBOLIC!

Do you see a physical building called "The Church" with the bodies of the Apostles laying underneath it as its foudation?

No . . .

Well, you're the one who actually said that you see it.. I didn't..

The foundation is the TEACHING of the Apostles . not the Apostles themselves. . . the building is not a literal building just as the Apostles aren't a literal foundaiton.

No kidding therese, it's a habitation of God through the Spirit, and there are twelve Apostles of the Lamb as the foundation.. So to YOU, does that mean that there's some unknown number of Apostles in His foundation..?

On that I wholeheartedly disagree.

Disagree with what..? are you suggesting that the catholic church had or has some say as to whether you're in the body of Christ or not..?

But this thread is not about the Catholic Church, it is about amillenialism and premillenialism.

Yes, and so your points about the church rejecting certain things has no bearing on anything.. ie, the RCC does not determine truth..

Shall we get back to that?

As far as I can tell, we never left off of that..

 

[ETide]

ETtide, I have been trying to establish some basis of common understanding between us regarding the nature of the scriptures . . . yet many times when I ask you a simple question that requires as simply straightforward answer, yes/no, I get instead a convoluted one . .

Sinc this is what is occuring over serveral posts now, I see no direct answers coming. . .

Are there catagories that different parts of scrpture fall in . . there are at least two . . literal and symbolic.

Do you agree?

Yes therese, I agree.. however, let me give you an example.. if the scriptures say that He is the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.. does that symbolic meaning translate into something literal ?

Absolutely it does.

It does NOT mean that the Lord Jesus Christ is a Lamb as in an animal.. although it absolutely means that He is God's spotless sacrifice offered for the sin of the world.

Symbolism translates into literal application.

Take our example of the body of Christ.. YOU EMBOLDENED how that it was symbolic.. although are you going to suggest that it doesn't exist..? I doubt it.

Simply yes or no answer is all that is required . . but that has not been forthcoming.

I've gone well beyond a simple yes or no with you as I have tried to explain the reasons and basis for these answers.. in the examples of growing in the GRACE and in the KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ.. it's not yes or no, it's not that cut and dry.. there's living application to these things as this is displayed in His creation in countless ways..

When it is I will be happy to resume discussion with you about this . uUntil then, we have not established a common basis of understanding to progress from.

Whatever you decide therese.. have a nice day !