Posted on 08/31/2014 10:51:53 AM PDT by wmfights
Events widely separated in fulfillment are often brought together in prophetic vision. Thus the first coming and the second coming of Christ are pictured in the same Scriptural context. Isaiah 61:1-2 as quoted in part by Christ in Luke 4:16-19 is an illustration of this. In the quotation in Luke, Christ quoted only the first part of the Isaiah passage, stopping just before the elements that dealt with the second coming. We can therefore expect in Old Testament prophecy the complete spanning of the present age with no inkling of the millenniums that separate the first and second advent. On the other hand, when time elements are included, they are intended to be taken literally. Hence, Daniel’s “seventy weeks” are subject to literal interpretation even though the interval between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week is only hinted at by Daniel himself. The rule does not justify spiritualization of that which is specifically revealed.
The premillennial concept of the present age makes the inter-advent period unique and unpredicted in the Old Testament. The present age is one in which the gospel is preached to all the world. Relatively few are saved. The world becomes, in fact, increasingly wicked as the age progresses. The premillennial view holds no prospects of a golden age before the second advent, and presents no commands to improve society as a whole. The apostles are notably silent on any program of either political, social, moral, or physical improvement of the unsaved world. Paul made no effort to correct social abuses or to influence the political government for good. The program of the early church was one of evangelism and Bible teaching. It was a matter of saving souls out of the world rather than saving the world. It was neither possible nor in the program of God for the present age to become the kingdom of God on earth.
If you would like to be added to this ping list please mail me.
I hadn't thought about this before, but I believe Walvoord is making a great point. The Apostles knew there would be a millennial reign after the 2nd advent.
Yes.
Very good and informative series. Those that disagree with the Premillennial view cannot honestly say it hasn’t been fully described and backed up by God’s word.
Amen!
Why does Jesus say that there be some standing here which shall not taste of death til they see the son of man coming in his kingdom?
Are some of those who were standing there still alive? or did the thousand year reign pass by with out being noticed?
Too many questions that are ignored or explained away as nothing.
Qoute the passage you’re referencing and you will see the answer.
Qoute the passage you’re referencing and you will see the answer.
Luke 17
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation
I believe all of this has already come to pass, Jesus was initially rejected but later even the calendar is based on the birth of Jesus.
The Roman empire under Constantine and later the Byzantine Empire, was two of the most powerful kingdoms on earth and they were ruled with Christ as their head.
I am ignorant where history is concerned, and to be honest about every thing else but it seems to me that at least a thousand years have expired for either one of these empires which means to me that the thousand year reign has already come to pass.
I believe the real kingdom of God is within the believers
and the thousand year reign referenced in rev 20 is simply a time period in which Satan was mostly powerless.
Then you believe the latest revision of amillennialism that emerged after the failure of Augustinian eschatology. You might recall earlier in this series it was discussed how Augustine predicted the 2nd Advent would be either around 650 AD, or 100 yrs after the ascension.
lenThen you believe the latest revision of amillennialism that emerged after the failure of Augustinian eschatology.
As far as I can see Jesus said he was coming back to separate the sheep from the Goats.
Mathew 25
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Reading to the end of the chapter it sure sounds as if this is the day of judgment and not a thousand year reign.
John 6
39
And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Just before Jesus left here he said several places that he would come back and receive his own at the last day, and I can not see that he said anything about coming back at any other time.
My point is that even if Jesus is speaking of coming back and ruling for a thousand years he is also talking about judgment day which is the last day, I can not see a thousand year reign at the last day and I see no where that he says any thing about coming back before then.
You might want to go back and read the previously posted parts. The position you support is amillennialist.
If you do a keyword search of Millennial Series I believe you will find the previous threads with the comments.
You might want to go back and read the previously posted parts. The position you support is amillennialist.
Sounds like you have got a "grip" to me! You post all the debating points amillennialists use.
It's possible, of course, for one to have come by these so-called proofs for amillennialism on their own. But, every amill I have known have gotten these debating points of yours from some amillennialist they have met, or read amill material somewhere - usually off the net nowadays. But your case is quite different, I see.
How does Cameron explain this foreign troop deployment??
definitely the wrong thread... I have no idea how that happened
in Mark 8:28-38, Jesus is speaking to his disciples
And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? ...
immediately following in Mark 9:1 Jesus says
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
which is followed in Mark 9:2-8 where Peter, and James, and John see Jesus transfigured before them and a cloud that overshadowed them, and a voice coming out of a cloud, saying, this is my beloved Son: hear him.
Correction: post 15 should have been addressed to you, not wmfights.
But your case is quite different, I see.
I have heard arguments about if most of the prophecies have come to pass or still to come but I do not belong to any side on these because it is much easier for me to read the Bible than it is to read all of the gobble goop( big words) the big educated people put in their writings that I can not understand, in most cases I have no idea what they are talking about
Here is an example
Millennial series part 11
The oft-repeated charge that premillennialism is only a dispute over the interpretation of Revelation 20 is both understatement and a serious misrepresentation of the facts. Opponents of premillennialism delight to point out that the reference to the thousand years is found only in Revelation 20. Warfield observes in a footnote, “‘Once, and only once,’ says the ‘Ency. Bibl.,’ 3095, ‘in the New Testament we hear of a millennium.’“1 The issues of premillennialism cannot be so simplified. The issues are neither trivial nor simple. Premillennialism is rather a system of theology based on many Scriptures and with a distinctive theological context. The reckless charge of Landis that European premillennialism is based only on Ezekiel 40-48 and that American premillennialism is based only on Revelation 20:1-7 is as unfair as his more serious charge that “actually their bases are both contra-Biblical,” and that premillennialism “is a fungus growth of first-century Pharisaic rabbinism.”2 Most opponents of premillennialism have enough perspective to see that premillennialism has its own Biblical and theological context and that its origin in the early church as well as its restoration in modern times is based on Biblical and theological studies. It is the purpose of this phase of the study of premillennialism to examine the general features of premillennial theology in contrast to opposing views. Premillennialism involves a distinctive principle of interpretation of Scripture, a different concept of the present age, a distinct doctrine of Israel, and its own teaching concerning the second advent and millennial kingdom. Origen, the father of amillenarianism, most certainly did. Conservative amillenarians would, however, feel perfectly justified in proceeding to spiritualize passages speaking of a future righteous government on earth, of Israel’s restoration as a national and political entity, of Israel’s regathering to Palestine, and of Christ reigning literally upon the earth for a thousand years. Their justification is that these doctrines are absurd and impossible and that therefore they must be spiritualized. The wish is father of the interpretation, therefore, and amillennial interpretattion of Scripture abundantly illustrates this.
They use a lot of words to say something that is probably simple if I just knew what they were saying.
I have also heard arguments about a rapture before the tribulation, plus mid and post, and believe none of it.
I have also heard about who the great harlot of rev 17 is from the seventh day Adventists and I tend to agree but I have not studied with them and I disagree with them on many points.
But if I am an amillennialist it is just a coincidence.
One more thing I can honestly say is that I know absolutely nothing, I can only say I believe this way or that way, just what ever makes the most sense to me alone..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.