Amillenialism

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Michael D. Edwards, Feb 2, 2002.

  1. Michael D. Edwards

    Michael D. Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello all:

    How many of the Baptists here hold to an amillenial position? For those that don't, why not?

    Just hoping to open up the topic.

    Redeemed,
    Michael
     
  2. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I can't hold to it because it just doesn't make sense. I've never really seen anyone who holds that position be able to carry through with it logically more than about 10 minutes in a live debate without resorting to "well then do you take THIIIS literally" complaints that you can easily show them all fit perfectly well together with a little proper divide and study.
    da Gina
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm one of the few who would admit to it Michael!
     
  4. Bro. John Willis

    Bro. John Willis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael D. Edwards:
    Hello all:

    How many of the Baptists here hold to an amillenial position? For those that don't, why not?

    Just hoping to open up the topic.

    Redeemed,
    Michael
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    After years of contemplation and study, I will openly state that I hold to amillenial eschatology.
    To Gina:
    This position is the only one that answers the ambiguities and trouble spots of pre and post millenialism. You can't understand it because you have been trained to not understand it, just as I and many others were. If the position isn't correct, then why aren't the others clearly delineated in the Scriptures? One example being the "two-phase Rapture"..

    Let's talk about this some more.
    Good topic Brother Mike
    Your brother
    John
     
  5. Michael D. Edwards

    Michael D. Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I'm glad my feeler went over well! [​IMG]

    I too, after studying it, have come to feel the amillenial position is the only one that you can actually truly compare scripture with scripture time and time again and come up with the same results. Through this study, as a side note, I would have to reject much of the thinking of dispensational theology as truly comparing scripture with scripture. But, for now, let's stick to the amillenial discussion!

    In Him

    Michael
     
  6. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope this won't run the rest of you off from that position, but I'm an amillenialist as well.

    Joshua
     
  7. dfd2

    dfd2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    I to hold to the Amill position. It is the most clear, most simple, and most truthful to the Scripture. Here is a good article that gives a good short intro to the Amill position.
    http://members.aol.com/twarren13/amil5.html
     
  8. sos

    sos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro. John Willis:


    After years of contemplation and study, I will openly state that I hold to amillenial eschatology.
    ...This position is the only one that answers the ambiguities and trouble spots of pre and post millenialism.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hello. I'm pretty solidly a pre-mil, pre-trib dispensationalist so I guess I'm the antithesis of an amillenialist in one sense. But of all the doctrines of orthodox Christianity I probably hold this one the loosest. I have 2 older brothers who are solidly amil and both of them are Baptists. We've had some "interresting" discussions. There are many people I admire very much who are amil (all the conservative Presbyterians such as R.C. Sproul & Ravi Zacharias are amil). And it must be conceeded that both most of the Christians who have ever lived as well as most who are alive today in the world are amil. I'm not saying that the amil position was indeed THE position of the early church, but it has certainly dominated since Origin's time.

    This is one of those topics which some people raise to primary importance on all sides of the issue yet eschatology needs to be considered a secondary issue. In other words, your salvation is not determined by which position you hold - amil, postmil, premil, preterist, or whatever subcatagory of the major positions. We ALL agree that Christ is returning. We ALL agree that when He returns the living saints will be transformed "in the twinkling of an eye" from mortal to immortal - so, in that sense we ALL agree in the rapture. We obviously do not agree on the timetable and details of the events.

    I would like to disagree with the statement that ...This position is the only one that answers the ambiguities and trouble spots of pre and post millenialism. . I'm sorry, but ALL positions have problems. I have remained in my position not because I've been "trained" to think that way but because I believe the dispensational pre-trib pre-mil has LESS problems than the other positions and that it is the most consistant position overall (I am quite aware that it has problems).

    One of the problems of the amil position has to do with the beast and false prophet of Revelation - who or what are they? When are they punished according to Rev 19:20? What, when, and where is the millenial reign of Christ? When is Satan judged according to Rev 20:7,10? The typical amil answer makes mishmash of the clearly delineated events of Rev 19 & 20.

    Another problem is that there a verses which clearly indicate that at Christ's return, the elect will be gathered unto him. Yet the parables mostly teach that the wicked are gathered together for destruction while the elect are left. The two descriptions contradict each other if this is one event as the amils and postmils believe.

    I also believe that there ARE elements of the dispensational beliefs to be found in the gospels. For example, the parable of the separation of the sheep from the goats in Matt 25:31-46 is, IMO, VERY dispensational. There are 3 groups there, not 2. There are the sheep, the goats, and a 3rd class refered to as "these my bretheren". Now the amil person must offer a convoluted conjecture that there really are only 2 groups and that the "bretheren" are really just more figurative language of the saved. But, to the dispensationalist, this is the judgement of the nations (not the Great White Throne judgement of Revelation) when Christ has come back to earth physically to set up His earthly kingdom for 1,000 years. Those of the NATIONS (i.e., the gentiles) are separated into those that are to be destroyed and those that are to inherit the kingdom (the earthly kingdom as well as the spiritual kingdom). They are judged by how they treated the 3rd group labeled "these my bretheren". Now, ALL believers are brethren in the spirit... I believe we would agree on that. But these appear to be a separate group from "the sheep" gathered from "the nations." Who are they? If they are not just brethren spiritually (and I agree they are saved), then the term could be refering to those in the fleshly sense. Who then are Jesus' brothers after the flesh? The physical descendents of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Do we have a clue who these people are? I think so. I believe (but can't prove) they are the 144,000 believing "Jews for Jesus" (my term, not scripture's) spoken of in Rev 7 & 14. This, to me, makes perfect sense and fits perfectly into my eschatological views.
     
  9. Michael D. Edwards

    Michael D. Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow,

    You put a LOT of different thoughts and texts to look at in one post. Maybe if you take one at a time, we could address them more systematically rather than an eventual breakdown into chaos!!! lol

    Alright
    IN Christ
    Michael
     
  10. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
    I can't hold to it because it just doesn't make sense. I've never really seen anyone who holds that position be able to carry through with it logically more than about 10 minutes in a live debate without resorting to "well then do you take THIIIS literally" complaints that you can easily show them all fit perfectly well together with a little proper divide and study.
    da Gina
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Divide and study is a myth of Scofield. Perhaps your inability to reconcile literalness is the real problem, and not covenantal amillennialism? :eek: :D
     
  11. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
    I hope this won't run the rest of you off from that position, but I'm an amillenialist as well.

    Joshua
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is scary; we agree!
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


    This is scary; we agree!
    [​IMG]
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'd comment, but I'm busy looking out the window for signs of the Apocalypse.

    :D

    Joshua
     
  13. Doc Yankum

    Doc Yankum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have held this position for years. The most important thing about this thread is that I consider it a special blessing to be able to agree with Joshua on something. Glory!!!
     
  14. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is why many Christians do not hold to Amillennialism.

    Amillennialism has its roots in Roman Catholicism. Many of the priests who converted through
    the belief of justification by faith and spearheaded the Reformation never excised this erring eschatology from their new found faith. This view is that the church is the kingdom and that the millennium spoken of in Revelation twenty is being experienced in the present age. The Catholic view today is synchronized with Protestant Amillennialism.

    The whole system produces a myriad of problems. Those who teach this view speak of God's final judgment being on the ‘last day.' Most teachers totally neglect and fail to tell their adherents when the Great Tribulation, the Judgment of the Nations, the Marriage of the Lamb, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment will take place.

    This view of end times events is often underpinned through the allegorical interpretation of Scriptures. Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who adopted the Greek ideas of Stocism and Platonism. He adorned Jewish beliefs in the categories of Greek philosophic thought. Clement and Origen represented this school and its influence flourished from the second to the late fourth century A.D. Some of their leaders allegorized the Scripture almost exclusively, thereby destroying the more literal view which our Lord intended.

    Respectfully,

    Dr. Berrian
     
  15. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really can't decide. They are all too confusing and all seem to have problems.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael D. Edwards:
    How many of the Baptists here hold to an amillenial position? For those that don't, why not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am not for the simple reason that God made promises that have not been fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled in the present world. The amillennialists must of necessity recharacterize the promises of God in order to evict the Kingdom of God from them. There are simply too many clear and direct promises with clear indications that the original speakers and readers understood them to be actual promises. We simply cannot just define them away.
     
  17. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro. John Willis:


    After years of contemplation and study, I will openly state that I hold to amillenial eschatology.
    To Gina:
    This position is the only one that answers the ambiguities and trouble spots of pre and post millenialism. You can't understand it because you have been trained to not understand it, just as I and many others were. If the position isn't correct, then why aren't the others clearly delineated in the Scriptures? One example being the "two-phase Rapture"..

    Let's talk about this some more.
    Good topic Brother Mike
    Your brother
    John
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It isclearlystatedthat therewere some prophecies sealed for future dispensations to be opened then. The Bible was written not just for our times but for the past, present, and future. Some of it doesn't fit because we aren't there yet. It's still prophecy and that's why we don't understand it. You can't change the meaning of scripture to make it fit the views so that you can understand everything. Patience! [​IMG] It'll all come in time.
    The rapture...don't think anyone on this board agrees with my views on that. :D
    Gina
    Ok, I tried to fix that first line and it won't let me do spaces??? Pretend you're reading old texts... :rolleyes:
     
  18. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reason many Baptists don't hold to amillenialism is because it isn't biblical. Sure, one can find scripture to support anything.

    It is interesting to me to see the myriads of ways that amills interpret plain statements. I don't know why they do it.

    Here is one: immediately before His ascension, Jesus' disciples asked Him when He was going to set up the kingdom of Israel again. Jesus did not dodge the question. He answered it. He said that it wasn't for them to know the times and seasons. If there isn't going to be a future kingdom on earth, why didn't Jesus just say so? Remember, the disciples had been with Jesus for most of 40 days AFTER the resurrection. Right after His ascension, the angels said He was coming in the same way He left.

    Now if amillenialism is true, and Christ came back in A.D. 70, then His ascension must have been spiritual and figurative. Hmmmm. I know that isn't truth.

    Amillenialism also must have the book of Revelation written prior to A.D. 70. If it wasn't, then the parallel passages found in Matt. 24 and Luke 21 (which don't teach amill anyway) must refer to something other than the destruction of Jerusalem.

    There isn't a single verse or thought that the pre-trib, pre-mill position cannot handle. I agree with MacArthur that none of scripture is allegory. :eek: :eek:
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
    I hope this won't run the rest of you off from that position, but I'm an amillenialist as well.

    Joshua
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    GASP! I now renounce my Amillenialism. Run for the Historical Premillenial hills!
    [​IMG] :D ;)

    [ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  20. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
    The reason many Baptists don't hold to amillenialism is because it isn't biblical. Sure, one can find scripture to support anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You may not agree with it, but its historic and biblical. Don't argue by red herrings. Amil, premil and postmil are all "biblical"; all find support in the Bible. Only one is correct however.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is interesting to me to see the myriads of ways that amills interpret plain statements. I don't know why they do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Amills interpret "plain statements" the same way that the apostolic writers did: in the NT context. Malachi 4:5 says "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes." Matthew 17:9-12 says "And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead." [10] And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" [11] He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. [12] But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands."

    The Jews looked for the literal return of Elijah; Christ said John fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elijah. So much for "plain, literal sense".

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is one: immediately before His ascension, Jesus' disciples asked Him when He was going to set up the kingdom of Israel again. Jesus did not dodge the question. He answered it. He said that it wasn't for them to know the times and seasons. If there isn't going to be a future kingdom on earth, why didn't Jesus just say so? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Who says there will be no future kingdom on earth? No amillennialist I know of. The future kingdom is the Etenal Kingdom in the New Heavens and New Earth, after the return of Christ. Like so many debates, a lack of understanding of the opposing viewpoint leads to reckless charges.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now if amillenialism is true, and Christ came back in A.D. 70, then His ascension must have been spiritual and figurative. Hmmmm. I know that isn't truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So do I. Who said that Christ returned in AD 70? You are confusing preterism with amillennialism (the two are not related). Again, know what you are arguing against.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Amillenialism also must have the book of Revelation written prior to A.D. 70. If it wasn't, then the parallel passages found in Matt. 24 and Luke 21 (which don't teach amill anyway) must refer to something other than the destruction of Jerusalem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Much if not most of Mt 24 and Lk 21 speak of the destruction of Jerusalem. I thought you favored "plain" interpretation? How then do you interpret "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."? Why do pretribs not interpret plainly "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There isn't a single verse or thought that the pre-trib, pre-mill position cannot handle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sure it can handle it, when plain sense meanings are swept away with a presupposed pretrib, premil hermeneutic. But what does the Scripture say?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree with MacArthur that none of scripture is allegory. :eek: :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Then you're both wrong.

    Galatians 4:21-24 (ESV)
    Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. [23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. [24] Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

    I agree most Scripture is not allegorical. However, the amill position is not based upon allegory but upon the purpose of Scripture as stated by NT writers: the spiritual fulfillment of promise and the incorporation into the Kingdom of God of the elect from every tribe and tongue and nation. Christ returns on the last day.

    Rev. 21:1-4 (ESV)
    Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. [2] And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. [3] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [4] He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
     

Share This Page

Loading...