Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Premillennialism: The Second Foundation
Tribulation Force ^ | Thomas Ice

Posted on 09/09/2006 4:04:19 AM PDT by xzins

THE PRE-TRIB RESEARCH JOURNALS

Premillennialism: The Second Foundation
by Thomas Ice


The second foundation stone supporting the pretribulational rapture of the church is the biblical doctrine known as premillennialism. Premillennialism teaches that the second advent will occur before Christ's thousand-year reign from Jerusalem upon earth. In the early church, premillennialism was called chiliasm, from the Greek term meaning 1,000 used six times in Revelation 20:2-7. Charles Ryrie cites essential features of premillennialism as follows: "Its duration will be 1,000 years; its location will be on this earth; its government will be theocratic with the personal presence of Christ reigning as King; and it will fulfill all the yet-unfulfilled promises about the earthly kingdom."1

Premillennialism is contrasted with the postmillennial teaching that Christ will return after He has reigned spiritually from His throne in heaven for a long period of time during the current age, through the church, and the similar amillennial view that also advocates a present, but pessimistic, spiritual reign of Christ. Biblical premillennialism is a necessary foundation for pretribulationalism since it is impossible for either postmillennialism or amillennialism to support pretribulationism.

Historical Overview

Without question, premillennialism was the earliest and most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church. The dean of church historians, Philip Schaff has said, "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age [A.D. 100-325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, . . . a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius."2 German historian Adolph Harnack has said, "First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ's second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned as an essential part of the Christian religion. . . . it must be admitted that this expectation was a prominent feature in the earliest proclamation of the gospel, and materially contributed to its success. If the primitive churches had been under the necessity of framing a 'Confession of Faith,' it would certainly have embraced those pictures by means of which the near future was distinctly realized."3

Premillennialism began to die out in the established Catholic Church during the life of Augustine (A.D. 354-430). Ryrie summarizes this change: "With the union of church and state under Constantine, the hope of Christ's coming faded some. The Alexandrian school of interpretation attacked the literal hermeneutic on which premillennialism was based, and the influence of the teaching of Augustine reinterpreted the concept and time of the Millennium."4 Premillennialism has always survived, even when it has not been dominant or widely known. Chiliasm, though suppressed by the dominant Catholic Church, nevertheless survived through "underground" and "fringe" groups of Christians during the 1,000 year mediaeval period. During the Reformation, Anabaptists and Hugenots helped to revive premillennialism, until it was adopted on a wide scale by many Puritans during the Post-Reformation era.

The last 200 years have seen the greatest development and spread of premillennialism since the early church. Starting in the British Isles and spreading to America, consistent premillennialism, known as dispensational premillennialism, has come to dominate the Evangelical faith. This form of premillennialism has given rise to the most rigorous application of the literal hermeneutic which has lead to the championing of pretribulational premillennialism in our own day.

Biblical Basis for Premillennialism

Even though the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear statement of Revelation 20:1-7, where six times Christ's kingdom is said to last 1,000 years, the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament also support a premillennial understanding of God's plan for history. Jeffrey Townsend has given an excellent summary of the biblical evidence for premillennialism in the following material:

Developed from the Old Testament

"The OT covenants with Abraham and David established unconditional promises of an Israelite kingdom in the ancient land ruled by the ultimate Son of David. The OT prophets, from the earliest to the latest, looked forward to the establishment of this kingdom. Its principle features will include: regathering of the Jews from the nations to the ancient land, mass spiritual regeneration of the Jewish people, restoration of Jerusalem as the principal city and her Temple as the spiritual center of the world, the reign of David's ultimate Son over the twelve reunited tribes dwelling securely in the land as the pre-eminent nation of the world. Based on OT Scripture, a this-earthly, spiritual-geopolitical fulfillment of these promises is expected.

Developed from the New Testament

The NT writers do not reinterpret the OT kingdom promises and apply them to the church. Instead the church participates now in the universal, spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants without negating the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant promises to Israel. The NT authors affirm rather than deny the ancient kingdom hope of Israel. Matthew, Luke, and Paul all teach a future for national Israel. Specifically, Acts 1 with Acts 3 establishes that the restoration of the kingdom to Israel takes place at the second coming of Jesus Christ. Romans 11 confirms that at the time of the second advent, Israel will have all her unconditional covenants fulfilled to her. First Corinthians 15 speaks of an interim kingdom following Christ's return but prior to the eternal kingdom of God during which Christ will rule and vanquish all His enemies. Finally, Revelation 20 gives the chronology of events and length of Christ's kingdom on this earth prior to the eternal state.

In sum, the case for premillennialism rests on the fact that the OT promises of an earthly kingdom are not denied or redefined but confirmed by the NT. The basis of premillennialism is not the reference to the thousand years in Revelation 20. That is merely a detail, albeit an important one, in the broad pattern of Scripture. The basis of premillennialism is the covenant-keeping nature of our God, affirmed over and over again in the pages of Scripture. God will do what He has said He will do, for His own glory among the nations. And what He has said He will do is fulfill the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants to a regathered, regenerated, restored nation of Israel at the second coming of Jesus Christ, and for a thousand years thereafter, prior to the eternal kingdom of God."5

Conclusion

Premillennialism is merely the result of interpreting the whole Bible, Genesis to Revelation, in the most natural way -- literally. Many of the critics admit that if the literal approach is applied consistently to the whole of Scripture, then premillennialism is the natural result. If the Old Testament promises are ever going to be fulfilled literally for Israel as a nation, then they are yet in the future. This is also supportive of premillennialism. Premillennialism also provides a satisfactory and victorious end to history in time as man through Christ satisfactorily fulfills his creation mandate to rule over the world.

Premillennialism is a necessary biblical prerequisite needed to build the later biblical doctrine of the rapture of the church before the seven-year tribulation.

Endnotes

1 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1986), p. 450.

2 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner, 1884),, Vol. 2, p. 614.

3 Adolph Harnack, "Millennium," The Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883), XVI, pp. 314-15. Cited in Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990), p. 117.

4 Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 452.

5 Jeffrey L. Townsend, "Premillennialism Summarized: Conclusion" in Edited by Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend, A Case For Premillennialism: A New Consensus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), pp. 270-71.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: antenicene; bible; premillennialism; truth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-233 next last
To: topcat54
First, Schaff himself was Amillennial.

Second, note a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom

Well, that is what the Scripture teaches.

What the early church theologians weren't was Amillennial.

That only came into dominance in the 4th century, with Augustine,and the rejection of the literal hermeneutic.

41 posted on 09/11/2006 3:39:51 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
There is a literal view of the figurative that makes it clearly defined by other scriptures.

Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas (Dict.of Pre-Mill.Theology, p.94)

In other words, we call Christ the lamb of God but know that expression is figurative, pointing to a literal scriptural truth.

Thus, figurative language must be rooted in what the literal truth of scripture teaches, not the personal thoughts of what someone wants something to mean, like Ezek. Temple really being the temple in the Christian believer.

42 posted on 09/11/2006 4:17:44 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
The truth, however, has not changed. The victory was won on the cross. Christ reigns today over heaven and earth. And one day at the end of time He will return in glory. We have no idea when that will be, but we are told to keep our houses in order for His return.

Christ doesn't reign over the earth-yet.

But, you are correct, we are to be about God's business, occupying until He decides to return for His Bride.

43 posted on 09/11/2006 4:23:56 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Well, that is a great approach to sola scriptura! Lets just ignore a Book in the Bible.

The Orthodox don't ignore Revelation; they just don't wish to make doctrine off of something that is so jumboed up. If what I'm being told is correct, they pull it out once a year, read it, say, "Hmmm...how interesting.", and put it back on the shelf until next year. Personally, I can't say that I blame them. If people for one moment took God's command seriously that teachers will be judged more strictly, I think most of us would bite our tongues on things we really don't understand.

44 posted on 09/11/2006 4:43:39 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; blue-duncan; xzins; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; fortheDeclaration; Corin Stormhands

Harley, please tell me that you're not trying to read back five-point Reform theology into Polycarp--or at least tell me that you've got more than one sentence which is pretty much just repeating Ephesians 2:8, and which not the most "Arminian" of us here disagree with in the slightest.


45 posted on 09/11/2006 4:51:42 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
If people for one moment took God's command seriously that teachers will be judged more strictly, I think most of us would bite our tongues on things we really don't understand

While there is also much we do not understand, there is much we do.

Revelation, combined with Old Testament prophecies (it is really a completion of the Old Testament promises) is not as difficult as many make it out to be.

As Mark Twain once quipped, 'it is not the things in the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, but the things that I do'

46 posted on 09/11/2006 4:56:40 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Paul chastised the Thessalonians for thinking they had missed the Rapture.

I don't see anywhere that the Thessalonians were aggrieved that they thought they missed the "Rapture". I see where they were wondering about the return of Christ and our gathering together with Him (2 Thess 2:1). I see where lawlessness was already at work in Paul's day (2 Thess 2:7). And I see where the Lord will slay all those who did not believe at His appearance (2 Thess 2:8-12). I don't see Paul mentioning anyone being "left behind".

BTW-I also see where "God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, (2 Thess 2:11-12)". One has to wonder if God is sending a "deluding influence" how this will affect their ability to understand the Rapture and what is precisely the point of the Rapture?

47 posted on 09/11/2006 5:26:48 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; blue-duncan; xzins; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; fortheDeclaration; Corin Stormhands
Harley, please tell me that you're not trying to read back five-point Reform theology into Polycarp--or at least tell me that you've got more than one sentence which is pretty much just repeating Ephesians 2:8,

I don't wish to get off point here since this is a thread about eschatology and not the 5 points. I will only say this, Polycarp statement is a expansion of Eph 2:8,9-not a quote. Please note the difference:

Polycarp's was speaking directly to Christians. His statement that we are saved by the will of God is not quite the same as being "saved by grace" as stated in Eph 2:8-9, although he may be espounding on

In any case, there is no mistaking that Polycarp believed Christians are saved by the "will of God".

48 posted on 09/11/2006 5:43:59 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Christ doesn't reign over the earth-yet

That's what the enemies of Christ want you and me to believe.

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." -- Matthew 28:18-20

Christ reigns today at the right hand of the Father.

49 posted on 09/11/2006 5:46:22 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; HarleyD; xzins; P-Marlowe; Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; fortheDeclaration; Corin Stormhands; ..

"You meant 19th century. JN Darby and his vision-inspired Irvingite friends in Scotland were not that old."

Well actually no, from this article the idea of dispensations predated the amil theory.

"From the first century, writers believed in different economies or administrations. Bible instructor Larry V. Crutchfield, of Baumholder, West Germany, has written an article titled Ages and Dispensations Of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. In it he points out that the Fathers of early church history believed in divisions of history based on God's dealings with man. He states, "Among those whose doctrine of ages and dispensations has survived from the Ante-Nicene period are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and to a minor degree Victorinus of Petau."

Crutchfield says that "Barnabas' year-day tradition is the earliest budding of the dispensational understanding of God's dealings with man."

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165): according to Crutchfield, Justin believed in four phases of human history in God's program. The first was from Adam to Abraham; the second was from Abraham to Moses; the third was from Moses to Christ; and the fourth was from Christ to the eternal state.

Irenaeus (AD 120-202): The dispensational scheme of Irenaeus is four in number. They are: 1. From the Creation to the Flood. 2. From the Flood to the Law. 3. From the Law to the Gospel. 4. From the Gospel to the Eternal State. He taught that there were four zones of the world and of mankind. He saw a connection between these zones, the faces of the "four living creatures", the four gospels and the four dispensations.

"Some Fathers set forth only four such dispensations, others came very close to making nearly the same divisions modern dispensationalists do," says Crutchfield."

I'll get the cites from the persecuted sects in the 12th and 13th century for you but I thought you might want to study these while I get them.


50 posted on 09/11/2006 5:53:57 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; blue-duncan; xzins; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; fortheDeclaration; Corin Stormhands
I will only say this, Polycarp statement is a expansion of Eph 2:8,9-not a quote.

It's a paraphrase, with a little of Eph. 1:5 thrown in. So? How does that indicate that Polycarp believed in what is now called Calvinism? I too believe that we are saved "not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ"--but I do not attach the Calvinist sense of "the will of God" to that sentence. Likewise any "Arminian."

To say that just because someone combines "grace" and "will of God" in a sentence they are a proponent of five-point Calvinism or any other variant of Reform Theology is nothing more than an inductive fallacy.

51 posted on 09/11/2006 6:06:15 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; ladyinred
Well actually no, from this article the idea of dispensations predated the amil theory.

The claim is easy to make. The hard part is backing it up with actual quotes from these folks that can reasonably be read "dispensationally". No one has successfully done that yet to my knowledge.

Crutchfield's article was published in Bibliotheca Sacra, the mouth organ of Dallas Seminary.

If you look at Crutchfield's criteria for defining "dispensationalism":

Perhaps the best recent definition of dispensationalism which incorporates the essential features of 1) the distinction between Israel and the church, 2) the hermeneutical principle of literal or normal interpretation, and 3) the purpose of God in history as the glorification of Himself, is that formulated by Robert P. Lightner.
You will see that only 2 of the 3 are distinctive to dispensationalism. Item (3) is non-controversial as far as anyone can tell.

So how does Crutchfield go about trying to prove his point?

What about "literalism" and Israel vs. the church? One need not go very far in church history to see the fathers view of "literal" is very different from what is supposed by modern dispensationalists. The most telling case of this is that they almost universally viewed the church as the fulfillment of OT Israel. They came to this conclusion by spiritualzing many of the OT prophecies and applying them to Christ and His church.

Even Crutchfield admits:

The prevailing view among the millenarian fathers was that Israel as a nation had been set aside by God because of her idolatry and unfaithfulness in Old Testament times and her rejection and crucifixion of Christ in the New Testament. Consequently, according to these early fathers, God’s favor was transferred to those among the Gentiles who believed in Christ. Thus as the “new Israel,” the church inherited the promises made to the old Israel.
Crutchfield attempts to minimize this fact with the following:
Lest covenant amillennialists claim premature support for their system from these fathers, we hasten to point out the following. In the first place, though not systematically presented, the early fathers recognized three categories of the seed of Abraham in Scripture: 1) the physical seed (descendants) of Abraham, particularly through Jacob; 2) the physical/spiritual seed of Abraham, i.e., those among the physical seed who like Abraham were justified by faith; and 3) the spiritual seed of Abraham who are not of his physical seed, i.e., Gentile believers also justified by faith like, Abraham. With these distinctions in view, the fathers nowhere made Israel the church or the church national Israel.
But unfortunately his support for this three fold distinction in the early church fathers is very slim. In reality the language used by the early fathers to describe physical Israel and God's promises is very much in line with later Augustinian and covenant theology. The carnal expectation of national Israel found in modern dispensationalism is nowhere to be found in the fathers. As Schaff has said:
The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.
It's apparent that "Jewish chiliasm" is much closer to modern dispensationalism than what was common with the orthodox fathers.
52 posted on 09/11/2006 6:35:33 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; ladyinred
There is a literal view of the figurative that makes it clearly defined by other scriptures.

Sounds like double talk, but let me ask again, when the Bible says, "For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine," is that "literal" or "figurative" language?

IOW, as far as figures of speech are concerned what's the diffference between:

"For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light"

and

"The mountains and the hills Shall break forth into singing before you, And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."

or

"His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth."

I'm curious to see if you can explain the difference (if any) without resorting to brute force method.

53 posted on 09/11/2006 6:52:25 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; DAVEY CROCKETT; Dr. Eckleburg; ladyinred
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165): according to Crutchfield, Justin believed in four phases of human history in God's program. The first was from Adam to Abraham; the second was from Abraham to Moses; the third was from Moses to Christ; and the fourth was from Christ to the eternal state.

Read more carefully. Actually he does not assign Justin to that group. Crutchfield writes:

It was of course true then, as now, that the basic division between the Old and New Testaments—God’s programs before and after Christ—were recognized. But it is also true that several of the fathers held to the concept of a multi-staged (or dispensational) dealing of God with humanity based loosely upon a cycle of failure and the consequent need for new revelation which aided an individual’s endeavor to please God in obedient faith. Some fathers set forth at least four such dispensations while others come very close to making nearly the same divisions proposed by modern dispensationalists. In the writings of Irenaeus, Victorinus of Petau, and Methodius, the number of dispensations is artificially restricted to four because of the quadriplex types adduced from both nature and Scripture which they felt required it.
IOW, when you scratch the surface you discover that these men arrived at a four-fold division in God's economy by spiritualizing and allegorizing the "quadriplex types adduced from both nature and Scripture". They did not arrive at such divisions by a "literal" approach to the Scriptures.

Crutchfield does not identify who he means when he says "while others come very close to making nearly the same divisions proposed by modern dispensationalists."

I didn't want you to miss that one.

54 posted on 09/11/2006 7:07:03 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; HarleyD; xzins; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; fortheDeclaration; Corin Stormhands; ...
"The claim is easy to make. The hard part is backing it up with actual quotes from these folks that can reasonably be read "dispensationally"

Try these for starters.

• Irenaeus 177 AD
• Against Heresies 1.10 - What the church believes: One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven.
• Against Heresies 3.11 - Montanists set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect of the evangelical dispensation presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete (John 16); but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit.
• Against Heresies 3.15 - Jesus and the Father are the only true God. Jesus gave Moses the dispensation of the Law, of Christ, of the church, of the day of the Lord ...)
• Against Heresies 5.8 - In the dispensation of Law the clean animals represented spiritual man and the unclean animals represented the carnal man.
• Against Heresies 5.32 - Some of the orthodox are ignorant of God's dispensations.

• Tertullian 210 AD
• Marcion 4.12 - Jesus annulled the Sabbath.
• Marcion 5.2 - Galatians proves the Mosaic Law is fully abolished.
• Marcion 5.11 - 1 Corinthians, the veil of Moses refers to the complete doing away with the old dispensation. Christ being messiah and abrogation of Moses Law.
• Jews 1.3 - Circumcision was temporary.
• Jews 1.4 - Sabbath was temporary.
• Jews 1.5 - Sacrifices were temporary.
• Marcion 1.20 - Paul in Galatians means the Law given by god then fulfilled and done away with in Christ. Not that it was given by another god.

• Origen 230 AD
• OFP 1:2:1 - Teaches there are many dispensations

The problem the post mils and amils are having is that you are focusing only one one aspect of Dispensationalism, the pretrib rapture of the church and then you highlight some of the excesses like the wrong prophecies of the rapture while down playing the fact that you say He came "spiritually" in 70 A.D. which is just as fanciful and impossible to prove.
55 posted on 09/11/2006 7:28:37 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; All

Thanks much for the ping, keep them coming.


56 posted on 09/11/2006 9:27:08 PM PDT by DAVEY CROCKETT (John 16:...33In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
You have undoubtedly misunderstood me or did not catch this first statement or I did not make myself clear. So here I will try to state it plainly.

During the tribulation period that tribulation is not of God. During the wrath period following the tribulation period it is of God.

Now then you have plucked a verse out of Revelations in which Christ is talking to the churches, now is this historical or is it figuratively speaking to the Church throughout the ages? You tell me. I will tell you this it is not during the 3.5 years of the tribulation period in which we were talking about.

57 posted on 09/11/2006 11:27:20 PM PDT by John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; topcat54; xzins; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; fortheDeclaration; Corin Stormhands
The problem the post mils and amils are having is that you are focusing only one one aspect of Dispensationalism

Then let's take another aspect of Dispensationalism-the reign of Christ. While some of our dispensational friends would like to say the early church fathers were dispensationalists, none of their writings support the belief that Christ is not presently reigning on earth. Even Irenaeus, who everyone seem so fond of throwing out as a dispensationalist, believed Christ was presently and actively reigning.

B-D, would YOU agree that Christ is reigning as King over the universe or, do you believe as our Pre-dispensationlist friends do that Christ is waiting for some "future" event in time to reign?

58 posted on 09/12/2006 2:13:23 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; Buggman; Alamo

Excellent post. It is clear that irenaeus liked the word "dispensation." I noticed it myself.

I suspect, since it's a bible word, that there have been others in church history who have used the word itself or synonymous language for the same.

A dispensation is simply "God acting with humanity a specific way in a particular era."

Garden of Eden, Ante-diluvian, Law, Grace, Millennium, New Heavens/New Earth.....these seem to be obvious candidates.


59 posted on 09/12/2006 2:20:26 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; Buggman
Dispensationalists do believe that Christ reigns. We believe it is an "already/not yet" arrangement.

Eph 1: 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

Eph 1: ...That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Just because a king reigns does not mean there cannot be a rebellion and resistance. (Resistance, incidentally, is the basis of lostness.)

60 posted on 09/12/2006 2:29:26 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-233 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson