Millennial Sacrifices

Did I miss something in this post?? I didn't see anyone doing this.

 

Quoting Pastor Larry, "If you have an issue, it is not with us dispensationalists. It is with God."


Pastor Larry,

I think that was a little over the top, wasn't it?

I'll write it off to your having a bad day.

In Christ,

Tim

 

No need to write it off to having a bad day; I wasn't. IT wasn't over the top in the least. My point was that you have a problem with dispensationalists because of God said. God is the one who prophesied of a millennial temple; not dispensationalists. God is the one who said the sacrificees would be reinstituted; not dispensationalists. When you argue against dispensationalists, you are picking teh wrong target; we didn't say it. I think a good case can be made that you too easily follow those for whom the text is a mere obstacle on the way to a position. I don't think they hate God or the Scriptures. I think they are willing to tolerate too much inconsistency in order to defend a position. I believe that we must treat the text with more concern and more reverence that that, IMO.

I think there are some issues with interpretation to be sure. But the freedom in interpretation cannot include the freedom to completely deny what the text says.

Having said that, I did not called you an infidel or an apostate, which were the charges made. I believe a person can be saved and be an amill or a postmill. I think they must trip over Scripture to do it, but they can do it. All I am arguing for is that we be consistent in the way that the text is used and that we use it in the way modeled for us in teh NT.

But please do not lead people to believe that I called anyone an infidel or apostate. That is what is over the top.

[ September 22, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

Where in the text is anything said about a millenium? God didn't say that, you did. That's why my issue is with your interpretation of God's Word, not with God.

I would never say that you "have an issue with God" because I believe you misunderstand the scripture. That's seems pretty arrogant to me.

Consider how many great Christians throughout history have NOT been dispensationalists, who did NOT believe what you do about sacrifices in the millenium. That should help you gain a more even-handed perspective on the issue. Surely they did not all "have an issue with God."

In Christ,

Tim

 

What made them great? Obviously it wasn't their knowledge in eschatology.

 

The teaching about the Millennium is all over Scripture. The word "millennium" is our English word for a concept taught in Scripture. In that sense is it like "soteriology," "trinity," "theology," etc. All these are words not found in the text but that serve a vital role in theological discussions.

The millennium is tuaght in Scripture though not by that word. We are taught all through Scripture of the reign of the Messiah on earth over his chosen people, the nation of Israel. Look for the teaching, not the word.

Certain comments you have made in this thread and others have been arrogant, IMO. That's fine. I am not greatly concerned. The issues are the same. The word of God is important and should be treated in an appropriate manner.

What about them??? They know better now . Seriously, the text is authoritative, not other people and their views.

I have a very even-handed perspective on this issue. But I still maintain that the text deserves more respect for its integrity that amills are willing to give it. As you said in another thread, "Words mean things."

I am not questioning your salvation or your love for God. I am merely suggesting that your handling of the text leaves a great deal to be desired because your system is too prominent in your thinking. It would be better to put your system behind Scripture and let Scripture speak for itself. I believe the words mean what they say.

 

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Surely i have respect enough for my
Brother in Christ that i will allow you your
opinion. If further you believe your
opinion, i will allow that also.
But i will receive the same consideration
for my opinion/belief.
I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
What the Bible said is true, what
the Bible means is your opinion or
is my opinion.
Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant
get confused what what the Bible said.

What is your opinion of this?

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom

Does the "Son of man coming in
his kingdom" occur the same 48-hour day
that "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds".

As far as i can tell from my reading
of the Holy Bible, the Son of man has
three kingdoms:
1. An eternal spiritual
kingdom in the hearts of
those who trust in Him
(started in about 33AD)

2. A 1,000 year physical kingdom,
(to start after the Second Advent).

I forgot what the third one was,
i'll think of it some time

 

Quoting Pastor Larry, "The teaching about the Millennium is all over Scripture."

Firstly, only one chapter in Revelation mentions anything about 1000 years. Many other passages that are often applied to a future millenium may very well be about something else. As you well know, this is something theologians have debated about for about a millenium already.

Secondly, I also believe in a millenium (don't let the misnomer "amil" fool you)--but I believe the millenium is what you call the "church age" in which Christ rules at God's right hand over His spiritual kingdom. It seems to me that this is the focus of most biblical prophecy, rather than events to come in a time in which Christ physically rules on earth.

Why would Bible prophecy about a future millenium be so important for us to know now?Christ Himself could tell us then--directly from His own mouth. He would be in a position to make anything known to anyone He so pleased without even using the Bible.

In Christ,

Tim

 

As far as i can tell from my reading of the Holy Bible, the Son of man has three kingdoms:

Can you point to Old Testament prophecys concerning 3 Kingdoms? I see only 1. So which Kingdom was "at hand" in the Gospels?

 

I just love people who are able to
take polls of how people felt about
an issue before the issue was first
stated. I really can't concieve of
the question "Will there be live sacrifices
in the Millennium?" existing before
about 1800. But here we have someone
who knows how people feel about that.

Not all concievable questions that we
can ask will have identifiable answers
in the Bible.

 

Actually, they have debated it for a millennium and a half or so. Prior to that, there was no debate about the millennium. EVeryone was premill in teh early church. It is true that only one passage mentions the 1000 years. So what??? Does that mean it wasn't really meant?? I cannot conceive of that. However, your statement that the other passage may be about something else is hard to justify in light of those other passages. It seems clear that the OT prophesies of a literal earthly kingdom with Christ ruling over his people in their land in peace. You have taken all those passages and redefined the words to make them mean something else. That is what I have a hard time with. I simply cannot do that to the words in good conscience. The text is worth more than the system we must defend.

But the problem you have here is the words. The words used to describe this kingdom cannot be shoehorned into the church age. They are too explicit for that. They describe things that cannot be found anywhere in this age. In fact, the church age is in many respect completely different than the kingdom. The focus of biblical prophecy is not the church age. In fact, the church age is not even mentioned in the OT. Paul called it a mystery not previously revealed. Yet you come along and say it was revealed all along. Your words contradict Paul's. How are we to deal with that? I do believe Christ is ruling over his spiritual kingdom. The prophecies in teh OT have nothing to do with a spiritual kingdom as can be seen by the words God inspired to describe it.

He addressed your view in Acts 1, when asked about the kingdom. The disciples understood all the prophecies as a literal kingdom on earth and asked Christ if this was the time for it. From his own mouth, without even using the Bible, he told them essentially, "You are right; but it is not for you to know when." He did not tell them they misunderstood. He did not correct their belief in an earthly kingdom. He did not tell them it was spiritual and in fact had already started (as some amills would have us believe). He simply said, "The timing is not yours." In light of this the apostles continued to proclaim the coming kingdom, not the existent kingdom in their hearts. They told of a period of the restoration of all things after Christ has been received into heaven for a while (Acts 3:19ff). That is extremely hard to fit into your system. The reality is that all of your contentions are answered by my views. None of my contentions can be adequately dealt with by yours.

Why is it important?? Because it is the revelation. I don't think it is something to get overly bent out of shape on. We will all be premills one day. But I do think it has implications for the truthfulness of God. The implication of your position, like it or not, is that God can make unconditional promises and then fail to keep them. I cannot stomach that. When God makes a promise, he keeps it.

 

I think that no matter which approach is taken to Ezekiel 40-48 (and mine is pre-millennial), some "fudging" of the text usually occurs. The amill approach tends to write off the whole passage as non-literal, but premills are not above spinning facts to make them fit into their theological outlook either. We sometimes forget that although Scripture is perfect, making theology is often messy, and not always satisfying. I know that as I study the Bible, my tendency is to make every difficult passage fit neatly into my larger doctrinal framework, but in order to do this I am at times not completely honest with the text. It's a problem I try always to be aware of. Taken on their face, these chapters in Ezekiel tell us that sacrifices as atonement for sin will occur in the coming kingdom (see, e.g., 45:17). Nothing (here or elsewhere in Scripture) gives evidence that they will be merely memorial; to assert this is to add commentary or speculation to the text. If we are entirely faithful to our belief in literal fulfillment (as I believe we should be), I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that sin offerings will be made in the Millennium. I don't know why this should be so; I can't explain it. But if we say that the sacrifices are only symbolic, have we not re-interpreted the text to fit our expectations? Isn't this the very thing we strive to avoid?

 

DCK,

Thank you for your honesty.(But I still disagree) IMHO the New Testament is the clearer revelation, so the O.T. must line up with it's theology. And yes, sometimes it gets a little untidy.

Ed,

Do you think anyone believed in memorial sacrifices during a future millenium before 1800?
I don't think you can find anyone who believed in two different future plans for Jews and Gentiles before 1800.


Pastor Larry,

I don't know about you, but I'm ready to call it quits on this thread. Its deju vu all over again.

In Christ,

Tim

 

I have know way of knowing.
I do know that the New Testament written
40AD-96AD does not say that there
will not be memorial sacrifices.
The Old Testament, written prior to the NT
say there will. But i have know way of
knowing what the average citizen
believed 33-1800AD.

The New Testament, written
40AD-96AD says God has two different future
plans for Jews and Gentiles.
I would expect that somebody believed what
the New Testament said, if they had time
to dig the fact out.

 

Ed,

Actually I was thinking of theologians, commentators, and preachers who wrote down their beliefs. These people did plenty of digging in the scriptures, but came to different conclusions.

In Christ,

Tim