sovereigngrace
Well-Known Member
- Dec 9, 2019
- 9,074
- 3,469
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There is no hard evidence here - just mere opinion and speculation.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Augustine was not sure. How can he teach a certain doctrine?
All the rest claim AFTER the 6 days. None claimed the Millennium was during the 6 Days. If the 7th is a Millennium, how can it not be viewed as the same as the other 6 Days? Not a single one declared there cannot be a thousand years before everlasting began. Not a one of them declared we will continue to live in the 6th Day, and we will call it a spiritual indefinite Millennium.
For one, they were wrong that 6000 years had already passed. Only 4000 years had passed. We can read and interpret the same OT, the scholarly Jews of the first century could. The OT did not magically change in the last 1900 years to make history shorter, or give us another 2k, making it now 8k. It was 4000 then, and almost 6000 now.
And there were other nations who gave even more time to creation, adding 10's of thousands of years. Only the Hebrews were conservative in their times. They relied on Exodus 20, for that interpretation.
None of them were denying a future 1000 years. The only reason you all today think they were amil is because the Millennium never happened. You are basing their thought on an unknown future to them.
When you can produce text where they declare there is no coming Millennium, you may get your point. When they declare they were living in the Millennium and Christ had returned after 6 Days, then you can declare the Millennium null and void. Not a single one claimed the Cross was the start of the Day of rest, where all of mankind's evils were over.
Why are you using Augustine's dispensationalism, to discredit dispensationalism? Augustine did not even go by literal Day equals an age. That is why they had the wrong amount. Since Augustine was in error, and you claim an amil, is that because of the error or not?
Then there's the bruise on Jesus' heel. Jesus fulfilled Scripture, but there is no mention of a physical bruise caused by a physical serpent.
So it must have been a spiritual bruise caused by a spiritual serpent.
As Genesis 3:15 describes.
How is one able to conclude that from just that little bit, that he never anticipated an earthly millennial kingdom after the 6000 years has been expired? What we need to get on the same page about, what is being meant by an earthly millennial kingdom? There will only be one kingdom remaining in the end, that being the everlasting kingdom. And since I see that kingdom literally coming to earth as of the 2nd coming, thus to me it is then meaning this same "heavenly kingdom" meant, and that if there are a thousand years after the 2nd coming, it would simply be the first 1000 years of this same heavenly kingdom meant.
You're not claiming this one as an Amil, are you? Why did you even include this one?
I pretty much read through this post now. Some of what you posted, though some of them believed in 6000 years of earth history, while some of them also apparently believed in creation days involving a thousand years each, which is something I don't agree with, it does appear that a lot of them were not anticipating another thousand years following the 2nd coming. What I don't see though, unless I missed it, which is possible, but was present in Barnabas' writings, is the mention of an eighth day. We have to keep in mind that Barnabas mentioned 8 days not 7 days.
How is one able to conclude that from just that little bit, that he never anticipated an earthly millennial kingdom after the 6000 years has been expired? What we need to get on the same page about, what is being meant by an earthly millennial kingdom? There will only be one kingdom remaining in the end, that being the everlasting kingdom. And since I see that kingdom literally coming to earth as of the 2nd coming, thus to me it is then meaning this same "heavenly kingdom" meant, and that if there are a thousand years after the 2nd coming, it would simply be the first 1000 years of this same heavenly kingdom meant.
You're not claiming this one as an Amil, are you? Why did you even include this one?
I pretty much read through this post now. Some of what you posted, though some of them believed in 6000 years of earth history, while some of them also apparently believed in creation days involving a thousand years each, which is something I don't agree with, it does appear that a lot of them were not anticipating another thousand years following the 2nd coming. What I don't see though, unless I missed it, which is possible, but was present in Barnabas' writings, is the mention of an eighth day. We have to keep in mind that Barnabas mentioned 8 days not 7 days.
Their writings were not necessarily about Satan nor the tribulation at all. They were not conflating the two events. They were approaching the Millennium based solely on Exodus 20, and the 4th Commandment. They were comparing Exodus 20 to Revelation 20, whether or not Revelation had been broken up into chapters.And guess what, it doesn't necessarily always require years of studying something in order to put 2 and 2 together. BTW, I haven't gotten around to reading the book you just pasted, because it may as well be an entire book, as lengthy as it was. I only got this far thus far, what I quoted from your post above.
Let's look at what Justin Martyr concluded since it is apparently some of the same as Barnabas concluded.
---------------------------
Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life ] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.' Luke 20:35f.
CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 69-88 (Justin Martyr)
------------------------------
that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem----meaning after the 2nd coming--day 7 to him.
and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place---meaning to him the great white throne judgment after the millennium.
'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.' Luke 20:35f---meaning to him the beginning of a new age, the same 8th day Barnabas referred to, obviously.
Clearly, both Barnabas and Justin held some of the same views, in regards to these 8 days in question. If Justin concluded Luke 20:35f was meaning after the great white throne judgment, then so did Barnabas conclude the same thing.
What is not clear about their views, since it seems to be absent from their writings, is how they viewed satan's little season after the millennium. They couldn't possibly have had satan cast into the LOF at the 2nd coming, then a thousand years after that, followed by the great white throne judgment, since this ignores satan's little season altogether. Since these were intelligent men, there is no way they could have overlooked, that after the thousand years satan is loosed for a little season, then cast into the LOF. They would have had to have had zero reading compreshension if they overlooked those facts. Though it might appear from some of their writings that they have satan being cast into the LOF at the 2nd coming, maybe they were just telescoping instead, or whatever else might explain it if that doesn't, which it might not.
Oh Jesus fulfilled prophecy? Satan is in the lake of fire now? We're on the new earth and Jesus returned already? News to me.
Full preterist views are not allowed on this subforum.
Hilarianus was not an Amil. Barnabas, Cyprian, Aphrahat, Hilary, Tyconius, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus and Augustine were. I removed his quote to remove any ambiguity.
Oh Jesus did not fulfill prophecy? Luke 18:31;24:25-27,44-45
News to Him.
Delusionism and denialism are the stuff of fools, as you see He said.
Fools are still allowed on this subforum.
Fulfilled 1st coming prophecies, but not second coming prophecies.
I think it may have been Augustine that was the Amillennialist that basically thought Jesus was returning around 1000AD.
Which coming do you think Genesis 3:15 is about?
Second
I strongly
and I mean strongly
disagree with the Amillennialist position that Satan is currently bound when Peter wrote long after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, that Satan prowled around like a roaring lion. That sounds like a lot of freedom and ability to deceive the world. (1 Peter 5:8), and Paul called him the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)
are Paul and Peter wrong?
cause I'd sure be disappointed if this is the best Jesus can do to restrain him.
not to mention the creation of Islam is the biggest, most consequential subversion of the truth by Satan that the world has ever seen and happened within the first Millennium after Christ ascended.
I can't express how strongly I feel both ammillennialists and post millennialists are wrong on this issue.
All this means is that most expect a 7th Millennium that we all may or may not endure through. This would be more post than amil. It still claims the Second Coming starts the 7th Millennium. No one is stating for a fact the second coming is at the end of eternity.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).
You are going to have to submit some valid evidence in order to rebut what Amils are writing. So afar you haven't done that. All i see is you venting against Amil. Please tone your language down it is not advancing anything.
This is typical Premil evidence. Just quote someone who is quoting someone who is quoting someone. That is not hard evidence. That is opinions. Do you have exact quotes?
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.
Is it really your position that Jesus came in his Glory with the Angels and that is why the Kingdom is already here.
All this means is that most expect a 7th Millennium that we all may or may not endure through. This woul be more post than amil. Ot atill claims the Second Coming starts the 7th Millennium. No one is stating for a fact the second coming is at the end of eternity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?