In defence of Chiliasm (or premillenialism)

[FreeinChrist]

[/b]

So, people will have sex in the millennium, but they will not enjoy it?

You are working hard to prevert my words and it is pathetic, parousia.

Please read more carefully. Marriage under God is not an abomination.
Seeking out sensual pleasures over God is. Gluttony is.

The Millennial kingdom is for the purpose of glorifying God, to Fullfill promises to Israel. Cerinthus was just seeking to to justify his sensual desires and preverted a teaching to this.
He also preverted techings on the nature of Christ.

This passage implies that this particular battle of Jehovah will be of a similar nature to all His previous battles.

No, this particular part has not been fulfilled yet.

Aren't living waters already flowing, available in their absolute fulness to ALL who thirst today?

This aspect, among many others, of Your millennium view has always facinated me. You have human beings being required to render blood animal sacrifices directly to Jesus during the millennium.

It is going back to the memorial sacrifices that will be in the temple described in Ezekiel 40 - 44 - which has never been built.

The future sacrifices will not be for salvation. Salvation was attained once for all.

 

[GW]

Free,

Dionysius and Caius clearly rejected an earthly millennium. You have tried to say that they only rejected the marital pleasures lauded by Cerinthus. We can read for ourselves. They clearly rejected the idea of an earthly millennium of Christ.

As for "sacrifices," I'm pretty sure premillennialists believe that blood sacrifices are to be reinstituted. How sad. What an utter misunderstanding of Christ's blood which he shed to remove forever the animal sacrificial system. That Cerinthus...what a heretic and what a grotesque error he foisted upon the Church.

 

[Breetai]

Not quite. Even the 1000 years had a beginning. I place this after 70 but before about 300

Are you making this stuff up as you go? This would have begun when Christ defeated death.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Free,

Dionysius and Caius clearly rejected an earthly millennium. You have tried to say that they only rejected the marital pleasures lauded by Cerinthus. We can read for ourselves. They clearly rejected the idea of an earthly millennium of Christ.

You chose to post only a part of the quote. Perhaps the did disagree with an earthly millennium...but many, many others did not!

And I bet if you read more oc Caius and Dionysius - do we even have any of their writings? - I bet you wold find they beleive in a future physical return of Christ.

As for "sacrifices," I'm pretty sure premillennialists believe that blood sacrifices are to be reinstituted.

That is not what the quote implied...slaying of victims refuerred to more. Cerinthus was a hedonist. Not a true Christian. Yet he claimed Jesus saved by grace.....does his beleif in this doctrine negate the true teaching that we are saved by grace because Cerinthus believed it too?

Honestly, GW, you attempts to make out premillennialism to be heresy and a creation of Cerinthus is utterly pathetic. It's in the Bible. The Second coming is a future event in which Christ will return physically tothe earth and defeat the armies of the beast. I find the claims that it is past as truly an abomination to God.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Are you making this stuff up as you go? This would have begun when Christ defeated death.

Not at all. The 1000 years begin after the period of the beast. That means it had to have happened after 70 AD. In fact, some amills say the kingdom started as late as 1500.

 

[Breetai]

In fact, some amills say the kingdom started as late as 1500.

Not anyone who has orthodox beliefs. There is no Biblical basis for this whatsoever.

The 1000 years begin after the period of the beast. That means it had to have happened after 70 AD.

No, that means that it was after Christ defeated the beast when He defeated death. You're buying into heretical teachings; heterodox at best. Are you also implying that Christ returned at 70AD?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Not anyone who has orthodox beliefs. There is no Biblical basis for this whatsoever.

No, that means that it was after Christ defeated the beast when He defeated death. You're buying into heretical teachings; heterodox at best. Are you also implying that Christ returned at 70AD?

Then what is the Orthodox view as you put it?

 

[Breetai]

That Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. He will visibly return to set foot on the Earth. All will see Him. I'm assuming that you hold this view.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

That Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. He will visibly return to set foot on the Earth. All will see Him. I'm assuming that you hold this view.

Certainly

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

So how does this orthodox view contradict the different views of amillenialism?

 

[GW]

FREE:
It is going back to the memorial sacrifices that will be in the temple described in Ezekiel 40 - 44

GW:
The sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 40-44 are the ones prescribed by Moses in the Mosaic Law. These are not "memorial sacrifices" by any stretch of the imagination. They are animal blood sacrifices for sin. Premillennialists (Cerinthians) are heading back to, *gasp*, animal blood sacrifices and circumcision of flesh (Ez 44:7,9). What a knock against the finished work of Christ. What a misunderstanding.

 

[Breetai]

So how does this orthodox view contradict the different views of amillenialism?

It does not contradict amillennialism. The amillennialism views which you were describing(ie. the reign of Christ starting in 70AD or c.1500AD) are not orthodox.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

It does not contradict amillennialism. The amillennialism views which you were describing(ie. the reign of Christ starting in 70AD or c.1500AD) are not orthodox.

They line up fine witt the Nicene Creed and whatnot...

 

[Breetai]

FREE:
It is going back to the memorial sacrifices that will be in the temple described in Ezekiel 40 - 44

GW:
The sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 40-44 are the ones prescribed by Moses in the Mosaic Law. These are not "memorial sacrifices" by any stretch of the imagination. They are animal blood sacrifices for sin. Premillennialists (Cerinthians) are heading back to, *gasp*, animal blood sacrifices and circumcision of flesh (Ez 44:7,9). What a knock against the finished work of Christ. What a misunderstanding.

What need would there be for animal sacrifices in the 1000-year millennium? Christ put an end to the need for sacrifices. I can see why there would be sacrifices(but still no need for them) in the 7-year tribulation. If the Holy Spirit is taken out of the world(ie. the Christians are gone) and the final 'week' of the Jews is at hand, then I could see them re-instating sacrifices.

 

[Breetai]

They line up fine witt the Nicene Creed and whatnot...

Technically they don't. Everyone who helped write the Nicene Creed would have agreed that they are currently living in the age of Christ. Amillennialists would've said that they were currently in the (non-literal)1000-year reign of Christ and any millennialist would have agreed that they were living under the forgiving blood of the lamb. Nobody who was involved in the Nicene Creed would've said that any part of Christ's redemption began at 70, 1500 or any other like date. They all would've agreed that it began at His death(or possibly at Pentecost).

What you were discribing as an amillennial belief would've been rejected, as still should be, rejected as heretical.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Technically they don't. Everyone who helped write the Nicene Creed would have agreed that they are currently living in the age of Christ. Amillennialists would've said that they were currently in the (non-literal)1000-year reign of Christ and any millennialist would have agreed that they were living under the forgiving blood of the lamb. Nobody who was involved in the Nicene Creed would've said that any part of Christ's redemption began at 70, 1500 or any other like date. They all would've agreed that it began at His death(or possibly at Pentecost).

What you were discribing as an amillennial belief would've been rejected, as still should be, rejected as heretical.

If you can prove this stance, please do.

 

[Breetai]

If you can prove this stance, please do.

I don't need to. That's the generally accepted view of things. If you can prove your stance, then that is your place to do so since it is the one outside of the norm.

 

[GW]

Breetai,

Do you believe in a future reinstitution of the Mosaic System (animal sacrifices, circumcision of flesh, etc)? You seemed to suggest that you do, but I may have misunderstood your statement.

Obviously, I believe the bible considers such an idea to be an utter impossibility. Christ ended those shadows and removed them at AD 70 because they were entirely without effect. Christ, abolished the old Mosaic system and set up in its place the New and perfect covenantal system. Finding hope in the now-extinct Mosaic system is the very thing Paul warns against all through his letters.

GW

 

[Breetai]

Do you believe in a future reinstitution of the Mosaic System (animal sacrifices, circumcision of flesh, etc)? You seemed to suggest that you do, but I may have misunderstood your statement.

Well no I don't. Maybe I said something that I didn't mean to or you did misunderstand what I said. Are you referring to when I said this: "I can see why there would be sacrifices(but still no need for them) in the 7-year tribulation."? I did say that there is still no need for them.

Christ, abolished the old Mosaic system and set up in its place the New and perfect covenantal system. Finding hope in the now-extinct Mosaic system is the very thing Paul warns against all through his letters.

I completely agree with that.

 

[GW]

Hi Breetai,

Glad we agree.