One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Just The Facts]

Hi Jeff


Do you consider yourself amill?

I clearly havent ignored anything. When Jesus comes again to separate the sheep and goats we will then inherit the kingdom , and the ungodly will inherit the LOF.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Hi Jeff


Do you consider yourself amill?

Yes

 

[jgr]

Which coming do you think Genesis 3:15 is about?

Second

Risibly absurd, but unsurprising in this age of modernist revisionist apostate subversion in the Church of God.

The carnality pervading that post would make any talmudic pharisee jealous.

Can you cite a single recognized historical Christian exegete who denies that Scripture's acclaimed "proto-evangelium", the "first Gospel", is about the "first Coming"; not the second?

Awaiting your response.

Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

Thanks as always, brother, for raising the standard of the truth of the Mighty Fortress Who is our God.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Risibly absurd, but unsurprising in this age of modernist revisionist apostate subversion in the Church of God.

Can you cite a single recognized historical Christian exegete who denies that Scripture's acclaimed "proto-evangelium", the "first Gospel", is about the "first Coming"; not the second?

Awaiting your response.



Thanks as always, brother, for raising the standard of the truth of the Mighty Fortress Who is our God.

Ultimately, it is the truth that matters!

 

[Jamdoc]

Risibly absurd, but unsurprising in this age of modernist revisionist apostate subversion in the Church of God.

The carnality pervading that post would make any talmudic pharisee jealous.

Can you cite a single recognized historical Christian exegete who denies that Scripture's acclaimed "proto-evangelium", the "first Gospel", is about the "first Coming"; not the second?

Awaiting your response.



Thanks as always, brother, for raising the standard of the truth of the Mighty Fortress Who is our God.

Not very mighty at all if the best he can do about "deceive the nations no more" is just "deceive the nations a little less"
and it's not until after the second coming that Satan is cast into the lake of fire.

 

[jgr]

Not very mighty at all if the best he can do about "deceive the nations no more" is just "deceive the nations a little less"
and it's not until after the second coming that Satan is cast into the lake of fire.

Tell God that He's not very mighty at all.

Tell Martin Luther that God's not very mighty at all, so his majestic hymn was a waste of time.

Still waiting for that recognized historical Christian denialist.

 

[Jamdoc]

Tell God that He's not very mighty at all.

Tell Martin Luther that God's not very mighty at all, so his majestic hymn was a waste of time.

Still waiting for that recognized historical Christian denialist.

the God I believe in is mighty, He doesn't promise grandeur and then deliver mundane.
yours apparently does.
and honestly I do not care about historical theologians much.

 

[Timtofly]

Once again you fail to furnish us with one single quote from Barnabas describing a future millennium. That is because it does not exist. He was an Amil. The fact you have had to run to Justin Martyr for support demonstrates your lack of evidence.

One of the most thorough researches on the Epistle of Barnabas comes from Premillenarian historian D. H. Kromminga in his book Millennium in the Church. In it he gives lengthy consideration to the eschatological position of Barnabas. Kromminga emphatically concludes that he was not a Chiliast but was in fact an Amillennialist. He acknowledges: "Now, it would seem, that this argumentation would land Barnabas right in the lap of the millennium as a final period of this world’s history. He is perfectly aware of this and does not at all shun this consequence. However, he explains the statement that God rested on the seventh day, as follows: “this meaneth, when His Son, coming, shall destroy the time (of the wicked man) and judge the ungodly and change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.” And the fact should not escape our attention, that in this chapter Barnabas links the notion of the rest with both the seventh and the eighth day."

He continues: "He seems to be of the opinion that there will be a seventh world period all right, but that period will be identical with the perfection of the eternal state. There can be no doubt about the identity of his seventh and his eighth day. The day of rest that is coming is one and the same day, viewed from 2 different aspects. From the viewpoint of continuity the great world–sabbath is a seventh day; but from the viewpoint of discontinuity it is the eighth, beyond and outside the present world–week. The future state is the last reckoning from creation; it is new, because of sin and redemption. This is the simplest meaning which I can discover in Barnabas’s words; but this is plain and pure Amillennialism."

Whilst Barnabas was not a Chiliast you can easily see how his 6 day/6,000 years theory opened up the door to the conclusion that the 7th day will also be 1,000 years long. Even though most of the early writers considered the 7th day as eternal, the whole basis of the idea of a millennial week was fraught will many factual discrepancies, human speculations and theological contradictions. A study of the early fathers will see that this faulty concept inevitably led to some embracing Chiliasm.

Stanley J. Grenz writes in The Millennial Maze: “The creation-day world-age theory that Justin and others employed did not necessarily lead to the materially oriented premillennialism of Irenaeus. This is exemplified by a work that probably predates the early apologist … the Epistle of Barnabas.”

Alan Patrick Boyd says in his master’s thesis presented to Dallas Theological Seminary (1977) “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers” and particularly his study of the Epistle of Barnabas: “In the light of the argument of the passage, can one conclude that the author (Barnabas) was a premillennarian? Probably not, for the following reasons. First of all, one must realize that a belief in six millennia of world history in no way obligates one to posit a seventh millennium in world history. In other words, the most modern scholarship can do is to assume that the Seventh Day, in the writer's thought, is a millennium since there is no prima facie evidence for it. One must not assume the part (six millennia) for the whole (seven millennia). Secondly, the concept of ‘rest from creation’ is given within the chronological framework of the second advent (15.5) and the beginning of the Eighth Day (15.8)” (p. 104, 105)

He adds: “Therefore, the Eighth Day can be said to begin at the Second Advent. In other words, the Seventh Day is eschatologically the beginning of the Eighth Day. Therefore, there is no interval (millennial or otherwise) between the Seventh and Eighth Days” (p. 105).

He continues: “The whole point of the chapter is that the Eighth Day is the acceptable Sabbath. In the light of this, the seventh Day plays no appreciable role. If the Seventh Day were a millennium that millennium is insignificant” (p. 105).

He explains: “In the light of this, it seems best to understand the Eighth Day as eternity, and since the Seventh Day is synonymous with the Eighth, the Seventh Day would also be eternity” (p. 105, 106).

He states: “In the light of the unity of the Seventh and Eighth Days, if a millennium were to exist, it would only be the threshold to, but within, eternity. It would be no interval between the present age and the eternal state (BOYD'S FOOTNOTE- this seems to be similar to Justin Martyr’s thought)” (p. 106).

He says: “In conclusion then, it seems best to conclude that Barnabas was not a premillennarian. The existence of an eschatological Millennium in the author’s thought can only be an assumption of modern scholarship” (p. 106).

He concludes: “…the sanctification of the Seventh Day, is not presently being fulfilled, but will be fulfilled when: 1) Christians are justified; 2) Christians are resurrected and rule the earth, 3) there is no more sin; 4) there is a new universe; 5) God causes everything to rest; and 6) God makes the beginning of the Eighth Day, i. e. – when God begins another world” (pp. 103-104).

So we forget the Sabbath, and rebel against God to Remember that Day. Just make something up, to make what ever you want your private theology.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hello Jeff

Yes

But you do not believe that the sheep and goats are at different times separated by 1,000 years?

 

[Timtofly]

Barnabas seems to be describing Satan’s little season which he calls “this wicked time.” He counsels believers: "Let us pay attention in these last days" for “the final stumbling-block is approaching” and the “Black One,” the “wicked prince,” is having his final assault upon the Church. Barnabas’ conviction that “the final stumbling- block (or source of danger) approaches” (or is near), seems to imply that we are nearing the end of Revelation 20 and not the start.

How could the end of Revelation already have arrived within 50 years. Now you sound like a Preterist.

 

[sovereigngrace]

How could the end of Revelation already have arrived within 50 years. Now you sound like a Preterist.

A thousand years told them it would be a long while in human terms until Jesus returned.

 

[sovereigngrace]

So we forget the Sabbath, and rebel against God to Remember that Day. Just make something up, to make what ever you want your private theology.

Whilst the unregenerate Jews continued to zealously celebrate their Sabbath on a Saturday (their 7th day), early Christians considered their Sabbath day Sunday as the 8th, because it embodied the idea of new beginnings revealed in the supernatural resurrection of Christ. But the mainly Jewish early Church, in its infant state, saw Sunday starting at sun-down on the Roman Saturday. Therefore, uniquely, the 7th Roman day also saw the appearance of the 8th Jewish day.

The introduction of Sunday-keeping was a notable mark of differentiation between Christianity and Judaism. While most orthodox Christians did not observe the Sabbath in the Jewish sense, many Jewish believers did attend the synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath because it was the only way many had of accessing the Old Testament Scriptures. In the synagogue, they had the benefit of hearing the public reading of the inspired pages. As a result, Christian gatherings often took place on a Saturday evening after the Jewish Sabbath had ended. This replaced the traditional Havdallah service, a Jewish religious ceremony that marks the symbolic end of Sabbath and the ushering in of a new week.

It was here that they would discuss what they had earlier heard in the synagogue, give a Christian sense of the inspired text and examine the messianic significance of these readings. As the Gospel spread to the major Christian communities in Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Asia Minor and throughout the Roman Empire this custom was widely observed. These post-Sabbath meetings became the norm.

So, having Church on Saturday evening after sun-set constituted Sunday worship from a Jewish perspective or Saturday worship within the regular Roman system. It was easy for Christians to view this overlap as both the 7th and the 8th day of the week, and therefore fit their theological paradigm.

The early Church were obviously treated with everything from suspicious and to open aggression and persecution by existing well-established Christ-rejecting Judaism.

The Jewish antagonism toward the Church created strong anti-Judaic feelings amongst the patriarchs. The early writers went out of their way to distance themselves from apostate Judaism and used Sunday observance as an effective tool of distinction and separation between the two. Because Sunday worship was a major bone of contention, biblical grounds were required and used to justify their new and distinct practices.

As Christians got more access to the Old Testament Scriptures and were blessed with better access to the New Testament revelation they became less dependent upon the synagogue for their scriptural education. The process of separation became inevitable for both sides and led to the majority of the Christians abandoning the Jewish Sabbath and adopting Sunday as their unique day of worship.

 

[Timtofly]

There is no hard evidence here - just mere opinion and speculation.

So quoting ancient opinion is hard evidence? Your opinion would not be hard evidence either. It is not ancient.

 

[sovereigngrace]

So quoting ancient opinion is hard evidence? Your opinion would not be hard evidence either. It is not ancient.

... that is if we are on the subject of the ECFs. Actual quotes (which I gave) trumps Dispy opinion.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Hello Jeff



But you do not believe that the sheep and goats are at different times separated by 1,000 years?

Hi JTF
Thats right. How can they be 1000 years apart? Once the sheep are separated at his coming the goats are left on their own right?. Why delay the inevitable.
Clearly the Lord comes to deal with them both when he comes again , as 2Thess 1 scripture I posted clearly states.

This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.


Matt 25
31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, but the goats on the left.

 

[Timtofly]

Your position here is built upon silence. You have zero references to some so-called future millennium. All of these ECFs believed in a climactic return of Christ. The burden of proof is with Premil, and alas they have nothing to support their theory. Quotes from the leaders of the Amil movement at that time (like Barnabas, Tyconius, Jerome and Augustine) nail the lie that the ‘6 days = 6,000 years theory’ was an exclusive Chiliast opinion. None of these men recognized the Premil theory.

Too bad they are not here to defend their good name against profaning the Lord's Day.

 

[jgr]

the God I believe in is mighty, He doesn't promise grandeur and then deliver mundane.
yours apparently does.
and honestly I do not care about historical theologians much.

Describe for us how Christ's perfect and completed sacrifice and accomplishments at Calvary are mundane. There are no ingrates like dispen ingrates.

Of course you don't. Dispens bow before their ideological godfather John Nelson Darby, who declared:
"I do not admit history to be, in any sense, necessary to the understanding of prophecy."

 

[Timtofly]

Most ECFs who believed in the ‘the 6 days = 6,000 years theory’ believed the 7th day was eternal - without morning or evening. They likened it to the 7 days of creation, the 7th of which was not said to have a finish.

The 7th day does not have a beginning either, if you want to be literal. It was 1000 years and then God created the Garden of Eden. That is why Day of Adonai is the only symbolic point that literally means 1000 years. It is a Day set aside for Adonai. That is why the Lord God told Moses to Remember that Day. It was not 24 hours. It was not 60 seconds. It was time that God gave to the earth to function for 1000 years as that is why God created heaven and earth for. That Sabbath was for men. All Sabbaths were for mankind to rest from the punishment God extended to all of Adam's descendants. Look up Exodus 20 and see for yourself.

That John pointed out a 1000 year reign was to be specific and detailed, to avoid all the symbolism of trying to figure out the 6 Day/6000 year formula.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The 7th day does not have a beginning either, if you want to be literal. It was 1000 years and then God created the Garden of Eden. That is why Day of Adonai is the only symbolic point that literally means 1000 years. It is a Day set aside for Adonai. That is why the Lord God told Moses to Remember that Day. It was not 24 hours. It was not 60 seconds. It was time that God gave to the earth to function for 1000 years as that is why God created heaven and earth for. That Sabbath was for men. All Sabbaths were for mankind to rest from the punishment God extended to all of Adam's descendants. Look up Exodus 20 and see for yourself.

That John pointed out a 1000 year reign was to be specific and detailed, to avoid all the symbolism of trying to figure out the 6 Day/6000 year formula.

All i see is opinions. Where does it say that in Scripture?

 

[Timtofly]

A thousand years told them it would be a long while in human terms until Jesus returned.

Hopefully you will not get too bored during that long time.

At least some appreciate the length of 1000 years.