baberean2,
1. First, Amillenialism puts the Messianic promises at risk such as the dynasty of Savid ruling the earth through Jesus Christ the Messiah.
Second, Amillenialism allowed the early church to be extremely anti-Semitic and history shows much of it under the banner of Christ.
Third, it caused the church to lose its root.
We serve a Jewish king, serve a church founded by Jewish leaders, venerate Jewish scripture.
God is not through with Israel yet and the destiny of Israel is denigrated by Amillenialism.
Fourth, the promise given to Mary by the angel is rendered indeterminate of ruling on David's throne.
The throne of David did not exist physically on earth during Jesus days. It is yet to be reestablished.
This is from Dr. Chuck Missler's book; Learn the Bible in 24 Hours of pgs. 256-257 on the Tradegy of Amillenialism.
I have stated these things before and gave you scripture before I ever read this book but I thought he said it pretty plain and strong to reinforce what I have shown from the scripture time after time.
I have also said it comes down to hermeneutics and Dr. Chuck Missler said the same thing and that is why Amillenialism fails. It has to allegorize wrongly and replace things wrongly and draw scriptures out of context as a result. Jerry kelso
Jerry,
1.
Hebrews 1
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy
throne, O God, is
for ever and ever: a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom.
Luke 24
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that
all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Christ's reign, from the right hand of the Father, in His kingdom of righteousness, began following the purging of our sins. Nothing was put at risk. All that had been written was fulfilled.
2.
"Anti-Semitic" represents an attempt "play the race card" and to turn what is an exclusively spiritual issue into an ethnic/racial issue.
The early Church was anti-Judaic because Judaism rejects Christ.
The early Church was anti-Pharisaic because the Pharisees rejected Christ.
The early Church was anti-Talmudic because the Talmud rejects Christ.
But did the early Church routinely reject ethnic Jews who turned to Christ, because of their ethnicity? If not, then it was not anti-Semitic.
3.
The Church's Root has only and ever been Christ, and Christ alone; no one else, and nothing else.
Unsurprisingly, Missler errs in his description of amil, for it was amicably coexistent with historic/classic premil in the early post-apostolic Church, well before Origen. Justin Martyr, who pre-dates Origen by over five decades (and Catholicism by over two centuries) acknowledges:
"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [i.e., premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that
many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."
Similarly, Missler errs regarding premil in the Reformation. The Lutherans, Calvin, Cranmer et al explicitly rejected it.
But both amil and historic/classic premil are far closer to each other than either is to dispensationalism. As Wikipedia accurately observes:
"Premillennialism appeared in the available writings of the early church but it was evident that both views
(amil and premil) existed side by side. The premillennial beliefs of the early church fathers, however, are quite different from the dominant form of modern-day premillennialism, namely dispensational premillennialism."
If you want objective information regarding either amil or historic/classic premil, you certainly will not get it from a Missler, or any other dispensational source.
