Posted on 03/02/2010 7:59:21 AM PST by Gamecock
While the bible does clearly teach against the Dispensational variety of premillennialism (see questions 18-21 above), it is much more open to historic premillenialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Both premillennialists and postmillennialists will look to Old Testament prophecies of a golden age of gospel success on the earth (e.g. Psalm 22:25-31; Psalm 72; Isaiah 2:1-5), and say that the nature of these prophecies requires a time in which the earth will not be in its eternal state, when no one marries or dies any more, but vastly more prosperous than it is now, when the Church is always afflicted and persecuted. Amillennialists, on the other hand, look to the many New Testament passages that suggest that, when Christ returns, he will at once raise the wicked and righteous dead, enact his final judgment, dissolve the old heavens and earth, and bring in the new, eternal state. When he comes, the Church will still have her enemies and persecutors, and evil men and imposters will be waxing worse and worse (see Dan. 12:1-2; Mat. 24:29-31; 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 2 Thes. 1:6-10; 1 Cor. 15:51-57; 2 Pet. 3:3-14). All of the Old Testament prophecies they would see as having either a spiritual fulfillment, so that the prophecy of a lion's lying down with a lamb, for instance, could be fulfilled by the gospel's bringing together in peace and love representatives of two different tribes that had historically hated and killed each other. Of course, this sort of thing is happening all over the world, wherever the gospel is going out. And then, amillennialists see the nature of some of those prophecies employed by post- and premillennialists as demanding a final fulfillment in the eternal state. Today in the Church, we receive a foretaste of those prophecies; but we will not see them perfectly fulfilled until God creates the new heavens and the new earth, where righteousness dwell.
Amillennialists probably have the most solid case for their interpretation of Revelation 20. Passages such as 2 Thes. 1:6-10, which clearly teach that Christ's coming and eternally judging the wicked, while glorifying the saints, will take place at a time when there is persecution of the Church. Against premillennialism, Christ's coming demands an immediate and final judgment and establishment of the eternal state. Against postmillennialism, his coming will not be after a golden era, but in the midst of the same sort of persecution that the Thessalonian church was even then experiencing. Then, the mention of Satan's binding, in Revelation 20, corresponds well with related New Testament teaching (see Mat. 12:26-29; Luke 10:17-18; John 12:31-33; 16:8-11; Heb. 2:14-15). And it is only reasonable that the highly symbolic, and most likely recapitulatory visions of John's Apocalypse should be interpreted in light of the clearer didactic teachings of the New Testament epistles. However, it should also be acknowledged that historic premillennialists and postmillennialists have reasonable arguments for their convictions, which should not be scoffed at.
You must understand that I was simply offering the definition, not agreeing with it. I am a dispensationalist, myself.
The game the Amillennialists play is to point out the errors of Dispensationalism, and then present their doctrine as the only alternative. Never mentioning there is another view that is not Dispensational - Historic Premillennialism. They want prospective converts to be kept in the dark about it.
You must not be looking the same places I'm looking. I see plenty of engagement with postmils and historic premils. Dispensationalism gets most of the visible response because that's where all the shouting and heated rhetoric is coming from.
Postmill? Above My Pay Grade reflects my sentiments when he said:
“Post-millennialism is pure nonsense. Amillennialism is slightly less ridiculous, but still clearly wrong.”
I mentioned Dispensationalism as not being “historic,” well, neither is Postmill. I find no evidence whatsoever in the early writings of anybody who believed such nonsense.
One would expect, considering the proximity of the early writers to the Apostles and the church of the first century, to find evidence of what they believed on eschatological issues carried over into the next century. We have lots of evidence.
Writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian even went so far as to claim their beliefs were passed from the Apostles to those of their time. Their eschatological beliefs were what theologians call today Futurism, Posttribulationism, and Premillennialism.
***I’m sure we’ll all find out eventually. Until then, I don’t see the need to get into arguements over it.***
I think it is important to read through all of this.
What will happen may surprise most of us, but we should be watching and waiting.
Haven’t seen any real arguments during this series. I think folks have been very tolerant of other views.
Clarification:
One would expect, considering the proximity of the early writers to the Apostles and the church of the first century, to find evidence of what they (the Apostles and church of the first century) believed on eschatological issues carried over into the next century. We have lots of evidence.
#102 When is 1000 years more or less then 1000 years?
No arguemnt here
chesley, disregard #12
Hmmm...what's with the #102? Is that some sort of question book?
In answer: when the term used is thousands, not thousand, i.e., plural instead of singular, an adjective instead of a noun. In Revelations 20 one will not find the number of years being spoken about, just that it is thousands.
I don’t think the “thousand years does not really mean a thousand years” argument holds up so well if you test it against other numbers in the Revelation. Seven, for instance, are we to believe the seven seals, trumpets, bowls, and all the other places we see the number seven in the Revelation, doesn’t really mean seven? It can also mean 70, or 700 trumpets? etc? The three and one half years (42 months, 1,260 days) of tribulation doesn’t really mean 3 1/2 years?
You got a point?
No Sir, It (the Holy Bible) reads a thousand years. I call that 10 centuries, you call it anything othter than 1000 years.
(a= indefinate article, meaning any 1000 year time span, but no more or no less than 1000 years)
(thousand= singular, meaning no more or no less than 10 centuries)
Your welcome.
Tom
chesley said: You got a point?
fatboy said: Disregard this. I’m sorry I didn’t read your entire post before responding.
Where did you get that definition? I got mine from what was found in old manuscripts of the book of Revelations. The term is "chilias" - a plural, and the adjective, "chilioi" - which is also plural. The term for 1,000 is chilia, period. Check our Strong's Concordance with the Greek dictionary attached.
OK, no problem.
But where are these numbers (#101) coming from? I went to the referenced site, and the essays were not numbered, and there sure weren’t 101 of them visible.
Ken, you are applying greek grammar to english words.
I’m looking at the English. Take your English Bible, Rev 20 and diagram it.
Not for a lack of greek dictionaries, lexicons, word studies and commentaries in my home library, but I just find it more convenient to read English translations.
chesley,
If you go to the web site that the OP quotes from, there are a whole bunch of theology FAQs and they are numbered. So I just added to the number starting at 101.
Small joke, very small.
Where did you study greek where they used the dictionary in strongs concordance to determine grammar?
Agree. Our Father is like our own parent - takes care of His own and out of the way of any harm. Unless one truly knows The Father through a personal relationship, it would be hard for them to conceive of HIS GOODNESS and FAITHFULNESS.
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.