Eternity in Heaven with God and the Lamb

I’ve heard arguments over MM going both ways and really don’t bring it up for the purpose of debating or rebuking dispensational beliefs as IMO the whole matter is a waste of my time, especially because of being personally slow to work through these maters and discover where the truth lie historically, and this over a point that does not prove the legitimacy of the doctrine either way but is only a side bar issue that is often used to insult the opponents origination of the modern dispensational view in contempt; I will admit though that sometimes it tickles me to tease about it in my orneriness.:smilewinkgrin:

It’s not that I would try to prove premil was never suggested before in any form before Darby, but that the methods to bring about a full scale infestation by producing a system to support his theory began with his outworking by motives known to him. I do think it is undeniable that Darby’s agenda began a tradition of “rightly dividing ” the Word to make this eschatological belief fit and personally find the consequences tragic to scriptural understanding by the way things have developed in this type of force to fit hermeneutical methods.

Although I see the dispensations of the gospel messages changing//progressively revealed I still consider it as one gospel and within my knowledge in this purpose of design of which the mystery was revealed the modern dispensational separation of the Body of Christ and Israel falls way short of lining up to scriptural meanings. Frankly, I would find the attempts to separate the Word to fit this doctrine as comical if it I did not feel it were tragic to spiritual discernments concerning understandings.

From within my points of view I doubt I will ever have a complete systematic eschatological belief and think I am in good company with others that feel the same way. I do know one thing though is that I have learned enough about premil dispensational doctrines to fully reject them as truth and am thoroughly convinced that this type of widespread teaching of methodically interpreting the scriptures in a way designed to prove a manmade theory is spoken of in Col 2:8. PS. I know them are strong fightin words and is why I avoid going through the whole circle of debate on this issue and nowadays usually only selectively enter into these discussions on specific points.

 

As do I, and often only to correct some error, either historic or gramatical. That was the case, here. I question the "orthodoxy" of no one, as to what they hold regarding eschatology, whether or not I agree, and have not done so here.

(FTR, I think the 'spiritualizing' of passages to fit any 'system', is "forcing into a box," as well.)

BTW, congratulations on the pejorative phrase " a full scale infestation".

That is really not called for, and is below your usual presentations, IMO.

But I will usually attempt to correct an historical mistake.

Ed

 

I know, and I learn from you because of you doing so. One of the most observed things about your posts that is helpful to me is from the example you give in your attitude.

 

Not sure that I deserve any such accolades but thanks, anyway.

Ed

 

Likewise, the doctrine of A-Mill did not "bloom" for four centuries, until popularized by the extremely learned and talented Augustine, after it was conceived in the mind of Origen, and his love for allegorical interpretation. The doctrine of "millenialism" or an earthly kingdom has its roots in the OT Scriptures, can be found to be referred to in the Apocrypha, which I did not cite, since I do not accept the Apocrypha as "inspired" (King James insisting that it be in the original KJV, notwithstanding), even if it may well represent a "learned" position, and consistent with Scripture.

Although it would not have had that title, since the time is not revealed until it was revealed to John. If anything, that concept same from some 'sects', if you will, of Judaism, just as the concept of 'elders' (or 'bishops') in the assembly is carried over, to a degree, from the 'elders' in the synagogues, in the Judaism of that time. 'Deacons', by contrast, have no corresponding roots in Judaism.

And FTR, Darby, and the Mathers come well before the SDAs and the Watchtower crowd. I did not feel it "necessary" to tell about my church, and Morgan Edwards, per se, but merely found that interesting that he as a Baptist preached this doctrine in KY before Darby was even born. And there were not a great number of churches in KY, at that time, in 1785 when he settled in kY after the Revolutionary War. "Forks" was the fourth Baptist church constituted in KY, in 1782, and is today the third oldest extant Baptist church in KY, as the Gilbert's Creek Baptist Church, which was then the third oldest, preceding Forks by a year, went dormant for many years before being 'revived' after some 50 years. And as the de facto historian for Forks church, I merely found that interesting. I live within four miles of Forks, and actually within ten miles of Gilbert's Creek, and within about 40 something miles of where Edwards settled, as the crow flies, and certainly no more than 50 miles. And he preached all over the eastern part of the state.

The point is that belief in a literal reign of God in the kingdom was prophesied in the OT, preached by some of the noted early fathers, as I have posted now twice before. Jesus never denied that this would be the case, but did show us other facets of "the kingdom of God", including the "kingdom of the heavens", the "kingdom (in another sense) being among you", and a spiritual aspect of this, as well. I also believe that "the church, the body of Christ" is still another facet of the kingdom of God, as well. Jesus did not cancel out the OT prophets, but merely put some of their prophecies in another context, and expanded a limited view of such.

I have shown that the so-called "dream of a little girl" (who actually was 15 years old at that time) being the basis for any "millenium" doctrine, is nothing more than an "Urban Legend". You might read my post to responding to Benjamin above. I would not base my beliefs on such, either, but the fact is, it never happened, in the way it is presented by opponents of a Pre-trib, Pre-millenial 'rapture'.

Likewise, I am very leery of basing my beliefs on the allegorical fancies of Origen, which I would rate right alongside the dream of Margaret Macdonald. I, too, actually want my beliefs 'to have a much more sounder footing than that.'

And I believe that God was and is pefectly capable of giving His Word to us, that does not require speculation to see what he is actually saying, and allowing that 'spiritualization' to trump the natural meanings of the word themselves, in Scriptures. Obviously most A-mills do not agree with this.

One of my 'biggest beefs' with the A-mill position is that of the larcency required of this belief. The A-millenialist wants to appropriate all the 'good' promises to Israel for the church, but leave the corresponding 'bad' 'curses' with Israel.

I ask, "Is this good exegesis, or is it bad eisegesis?" I tend to think it is the latter.

More to come, but I've gotta' do something else, first.

And as I said to Benjamin, I'm not real sure I deserve any praise (in fact, I don't), but thanks, as well.

Ed

 

You are correct as to the millenium, as to the 1000 years not being mentioned in the OT, and I have already posted as such. How could it have been, since the time of 1000 years was first revealed to John in the Revelation? Yet a coming kingdom was clearly revealed in the OT, without a time limit being mentioned. Does one necessarily negate the other? I don't think so. The "church", the body of Christ, is never mentioned in the OT either. Does that mean that it was not in the mind of God then, and He only came up with it later, as some afterthought? C'mon! You don't believe that (I hope!?!??), and neither do I!!

And you are also entirely correct that this teaching of a millenium was not a common doctrine 'in the churches' for many years. So what? Neither was the doctrine of "justification by faith, alone", as I have again already posted once. It too, was considered heresy, especially by the Roman Catholic church, who would happily have executed Martin Luther, and indeed had that very intention (as did the Emperor), and would have done so, save for the intervention and personal protection of Frederick III, elector of Saxony, and his son, after him, John Frederick. In fact, Luther lived for at least three years expecting death each and every day, for being "a heretic". He was averse to marriage for this very reason, and avoided it for four years, even though he would have liked to be married, not wanting to leave a widow should he be executed. Oh, yeah! Before the time of Luther, only "a few renegades" openly taught this doctrine. Did that make it incorrect doctrine? Again, I don't think so!

Well, I guess I prefer the opinion of Jesus Christ and John over that of Calvin when it comes to Revelation.

The Revelation, the last book in the NT is the only book in the Bible that specifically promises a blessing on those who read it those who hear it, and those who keep what it says. And that blessing is three-fold. And there is certainly nothing said about it making anyone "mad", John Calvin notwithstanding. But it is said to bless anyone.

Betcha' can't find any such blessing reading the 'begats' and 'begots' in the last book of the Hebrew OT, Chronicles. Naw, that'll put you to sleep, with boredom! :laugh: It certainly was what Ashaureus used to try to get to sleep! Guess he didn't have any Sominex® handy! :laugh: (Esther 6:1)

Ed

P.S. I ain't gonna' have to read Chronicles tonight either. I'm about asleep as I write this and am a-fixin' to make that a reality. G'nite, all.

 

Finishing up.

I fully agree with the first sentence, here. We certainly do still "see through a glass darkly". And thus, while I hold some definite opinions on eschatology, I have never used that as any "rod of orthodoxy", nor do I here, although I am certainly not shy about presenting what I believe to be taught, I do not think.

But the second sentence you have printed, here, is far more troubling, to me, than anything you or anyone else, might hold as to eschatology. If my being "among the "saved"" is in any way dependant on my having "to do the best we know how", I cannot agree with this, at all. My being saved is not the result of such, by any stretch. My being saved is solely based by grace, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that alone. It is in no way dependent on 'what I will have to do'. Nor is my 'keeping it' dependent on me in any way, but only in His keeping of me. My rewards will be dependent on my faithfullness, I agree fully. But my salvation is solely based on the one time sacrifice of Jesus for sin, adn the resurrection to prove it, and my faith in Him. because of that. I am "in His hands" and no man, (including me) 'shall be able to pluck me out of His and my Father's hand.'

I do hope that is something you have posted without thinking it through, carefully. Please reconsider how you could better have worded this.

Ed

 

Of course, exactly what you have to do is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." All quotes are NKJV. And oh yeah, I ain't yellin' with the bold and large print, either.

And by no means have I ever said anything any different, for I certainly do not believe any different. It's called a direct quote, and answer in the Bible to the only time the question is asked of "what must I do to be saved?" That is the only Biblical answer found to this question.
In fact, that is not only what you or I "have to do", it is all that you or I "can do" to be saved. That is the "what" of salvation, so to speak.
Who? - Whoever

What? Answered above.

When? Today! Right now!

Where? Wherever one is, by the trees of Mamre, by the well of Sychar, on the cross as the thief, on the road to Gaza, wherever one is.

Why? It pleased God, and it suited His own purpose. because of His great love.

leading directly to

How? By grace through faith; by the blood, with (our) works having nothing to do with it.

Brother Bob, I got a bit sidetracked and this old farmer just made up a good six point sermon outline, IMO, that any of y'all can use, and develop it into a real sermon or lesson. Have at it everyone. I'll try and answer a bit later, staying on your topic and post, but I gotta' run for now..

Ed

 

Brother Bob, I used a version the phrase 'faith in Christ' two times. Faith and believe are one and the same word. The only difference is one is a noun and the other is a verb. There is no difference, there.

I gotta' run so will get back later, God willing.

Ed

 

Bob, I know you do and you and I have butted heads on this a few times in the past and this is SO hard to articulate to you, (either that or it is hard for me to articulate) partly being an issue of semantics, and I DO understand how you feel about doctrines being expressed sounding as if there is no responsibility as I partly agree with your feelings about hearing such taught without further explanation as per:

(Mat 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I just wonder if as a teacher you are considering the semantics here between the ‘milk”- (you are saved by grace through faith, not of yourself, not of works) and the “meat” (examine yourself to see if you are of faith, for we are saved by hope, lest ye fall, etc..) because if one where to try and bypass the truth of “by grace” to the milk sucking believer in their teaching by sounding as if they are adding works they would be just as wrong sounding as the one teaching there is no responsibility whatsoever to a meat eating believer, if not more so, because if they were actually to believe that the responsibility is a mandatory conditional requirement then I would tell that teacher that he needs to start over and drink the milk.

I what you to stop getting so irritated so as to be “ill” by someone holding up the milk as it makes me feel rather ill to hear you put up this kind of fuss because basically one can not fit the entire gospel into a quick sentence, and ask you to consider the following passage:

(Heb 5:13) For every one that useth milk is unskillfull in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

(Heb 5:14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Your claim to be made ill from others (you hate hearing grace put so simply) would be partially justified only if it were true that they meant it to declare that one should only considering the milk.

But what if the presentation of the #1 priority to get across in the message of the gospel to a milk sucking believer is distorted by your accusations? (the thought of that makes me feel ill) The sweet milk of salvation is that we are saved by God’s grace through faith alone. One must always consider the audience, dare not preach another gospel while preaching the whole gospel.

I think others are only seeming to claim to have no responsibility to you because you are only hearing the #1 milk and are demanding to hear the meat in the same sentence which makes you sound like salvation is conditional on works to others. You take it like they suggest (You don’t have to serve your Master) but that message to a meat eating Christian that you do serve your Master in faith should be clearly understood by a mature Christian so I do not think it should be made to sound on the contrary that to the fact that WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH AND NOT OF WORKS in a public forum.

#1) I would conclude that a “teacher” is unskillful in the word of righteousness IF all he would ever use is the milk.

#2) I would conclude that a “teacher” IF he yanks out the meat and chokes a milk sucking babe or even attempts shoving it to quickly in front of an open audience without a drink of milk in the process to wash it down as just as unskillful in the word of righteousness and needs to start back on the # 1 “milk” himself.

I really think the balance that you argue here is in semantics as I truly hope you never would “believe” that you could save yourself in your works, but only being sanctified in faith do you do the works. And I think in our other discussions when the articulation sheds a little light becoming clear we have basically agreed to be saying the same thing until the issue is complicated further in examining the fruit and is where I think I would disagree with you as I feel it a very dangerous judgment to make on another if it shows you “believe” they are saved by there “own” fruit and not the righteousness of Christ through sanctification in grace through faith alone as that kind of judgment is exactly what I think is being referred to in Mathew 7.

(Mat 7:1) Judge not, that ye be not judged.

(Mat 7:2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

(Mat 7:3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I got to get off to work also and had to hurry to put this down but hope you get my drift. raying:

 

True. But then they will descend out of heaven when the new heaven and new earth are created after this original earth is destroyed by fire.

That's true, but the new heaven and new earth are created after the 1000 year reign and after the 1000 year reign, the old earth that we now live on is destroyed by fire. Then the new Jerusalem will come down from heaven as described in the original passage from Rev. I quoted ya above.

They will come down from heaven as the New Jerusalem, as I previously stated.

So, if it doesn't make sense to you, then this part of the Bible needs to be snipped out because it must not be true:

Rev. 21:[3] And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

PS: God came down from his throne and walked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, remember?

 

God sure went to a lot of trouble to give the measurements of the New Jerusalem if it is spiritual and not literal.

Rev. 21
15] And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
[16] And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
[17] And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

Of course, I am bearing in mind that when God gave these measurements to John, this is the same God Who has named each star, Who set the planets in space, in their orbits, which don't collide with our planet in our solar system because they are in His exact orbit that He put them in down to the very centimeter, and that He created galaxies billions of miles away, yet He knows exactly how many feet each is from planet earth, AND He knows the exact number of hairs on my head and sees each sparrow that falls. So, being that God also knows how many grains of sand are on the nearest beach, I have no doubt that He is accurate in His measurements of the New Jerusalem and that they are literal measurements which He gave to John in the Book of Revelation.

The Scripture says the NJ is "adorned as a bride" and does not say it is the Bride.

The Bible has already described it, literally, even down to the measurements. No, I have never considered it to be spiritual, always literal, using the old adage: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense." Or to paraphrase, when the plain sense makes common sense, to seek other sense is nonsense.