Amillenialism

Aaron:
You have accused me of dealing with "gnats" and engaging in "quibbling" but still haven't dealt with my original question: If the chapters in Ezekiel dealing with the building of the temple (43) the division of land, the river giving life and the repositioning of the tribes (47,48) are all to be spiritualized to fit the amillenialist position, why did the prophet Ezekiel, who being a prophet of God, which means 100 per cent of what he has stated as a prophet must be true, go into such detail. Instead of spending the entire 43rd chapter he could have just said the temple that I am describing in such detail is just a symbol of the great temple in the sky. Now, folks, I realize I have spent the last two chapters of my book explaining rivers, and divisions of land (land that is in heaven and doesn't have an physical existence) the assigning of the 12 tribes to totally different positions in the millenial kingdom from what Joshua 13 has them listed, but don't pay any attention to any of this because it is all fulfilled in the -- church!!! I realize you have no idea whatsoever what the church means, but you will when you get to heaven.

As for Chris's statement about "what's so hard to understand" I realize that not all of us are so knowledgeable about all this in comparsion with him, but that is why I am responding to some of this to start with -- so I can learn. I don't think that makes me ignorant or that my mental abilities should be questioned. Be that as it may, I DO find it hard to understand the Amillenial position and the more I read the more I think it is impossible to just spiritualize away the prophets of God and the promises of the land to Israel. Like I said, though, I'm still learning so forgive me if I don't have the superior knowledge that you do Chris!!!!

By the way, Aaron, the way I read the verses dealing with the flowing of the river, it looks to me like that river is very deep, flows into the "Great Sea" makes the water sweet in the Dead Sea, flows north and south and will water and restore that whole area into what sounds like a great area to farm. But, then again, I guess all that detail doesn't mean what it says. It was meant to be symbolic.
James2

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Why don't you ask Chis? I have not been sarcastic at all in any of this, until his comment. Or didn't you read his comment to me!!
James2

 

Pastor Larry,

I dealt with the Abrahamic Covenant earlier. Besides, you're arguing with the Apostle Paul, not me.

Michael,

I prefer the term "earthly" for what we generally mean when we say literal, and "heavenly" for what we generally mean when we say "spiritual" or "allegorical." As Chris stated, we do believe in the literal fulfillment of these prophecies. We believe that their fulfillment is in heaven, not on the earth.

The General Rule is, as I understand it, that only the "handwriting of ordinances" which were against us have been taken out of the way being nailed to the cross--not destroyed but fulfilled. The moral law, the Ten Commandments, were written in stone without hands, and they are perpetual. That means that everything written by the hand of Moses and the Prophets were fulfilled in Christ's obedience even to the death of the cross.

James,

I have commented upon the critical elements of Ezekiel's prophecy. Everything else is incidental. I do not wish to quibble over trifles. Don't let the trees prevent you from seeing the forest. Great detail was supplied when the pattern for building the Tabernacle and the laws concerning sacrifice were given to Moses, yet you seem to have no aversion to accepting spiritual explanations for those things.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Aaron:
Call it quibbling if you must. I haven't heard a rational explanation of those chapters yet. Even John Gill, who I really like on everything else, totally went off the deep end trying to explain those chapters. He spiritualized everything so much it was pushed to absurdity.

As for the Tabernacle, of course it was the type of things to come. However, it did actually literally exist just like the temple in chapter 43 of Ezeikel will. I don't see how that can be explained away in symbols.

Anyway, thanks for responding and I will leave further points on this to be covered by people that have studied it in far greater depth than I have.

After the last couple of posts, not by you, I feel this is going no where so I'm bowing out. Goodbye folks!!!
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Why don't you ask Chis? I have not been sarcastic at all in any of this, until his comment. Or didn't you read his comment to me!!
James2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James:

Please forgive my sarcasm. I do not have superior knowledge; I'm just tired of arguing with folks who think they do.

The plain sense of Scripture seems obvious to me when not clouded by intricate and presupposed systems. I think a plain reading of progressive-redemptive history will reveal God working in one covenant of grace to create one people of God.

In a book I am now reading for seminary, it says this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "[The] sequential self-disclosure of God's divine character and redemptive plan for humanity is usually understood as "progressive-revelation"... God's initial promise to Abraham included a tract of land, Canaan, as a perpetual inheritance for his descendants. Yet the office of king is not mentioned until Jacob's deathbed blessing of his son Judah (Gen 49:10). The divine right of kingship belongs to the family of David (2 Sam 7:1-14). Much later, the exilic prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel indicate the Davidic kingship was but a foreshadowing of an even greater messianic ruler who would govern the land of promise (Jer 33:14-21; Ezek 33:23-24). Of course, the NT writers make clear that the old covenant found its fulfillment and completion in the new covenant and the person and work fo Jesus Christ (Matt 5:17; Heb 8:13)." {Andrew E. Hill. Enter His Courts With Praise!Baker Books. 1996. pp 30-31} <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with dispensationalism is that it preaches a regressive-revelation history rather than a progressive-revelation history. Its hermeneutic is not NT driven, but Genesis driven. When the NT tells us that Christ is the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, dispensationalism says, no, he is not. It essentially refutes NT revelation, and it then becomes a very dangerous system.

Again, please forgive my earlier sarcasm.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
I dealt with the Abrahamic Covenant earlier. Besides, you're arguing with the Apostle Paul, not me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am agreeing with the apostle Paul as should be evident from the citations. Paul does not say that the AC was conditional or removed; he expressly says that the Law did not annul the Promise. I agree with him. The Promise is still in effect.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
The problem with dispensationalism is that it preaches a regressive-revelation history rather than a progressive-revelation history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. DT is built on progressive revelation. It is not about regressive at all. It is CT that denies, at least in reality, the idea of progressive revelation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its hermeneutic is not NT driven, but Genesis driven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its hermeneutic is language driven. It is impossible to communicate without the hermeneutic of the dispensationalist. It understands Genesis the same way that it understands the NT: according to the words used by the author to communicate his intended thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the NT tells us that Christ is the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, dispensationalism says, no, he is not. It essentially refutes NT revelation, and it then becomes a very dangerous system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If only this were true. However it is not. The NT does say that Christ is the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham. It identifies Christ with one specific plank of the promises, the blessing which came through a member of the seed. It does not anywhere annul the rest of the promises.

DT does not refute NT revelation. I have answered time and time again, every single passage that you have put forth from the NT. It is the CT who ignores OT revelation.

 

Pastor Larry,

That's right. The Law did not annul the Promises.

To whom were the promises made? To Abraham and to his seed (singular).

Who was this seed? Jesus Christ.

There you have it straight from the pen of Paul. Don't say you agree. You don't agree.

Paul says the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. But you say that the seed is many. Paul says the seed is one.

Guess whose statement I'm going to accept as true

 

well, I grew up only hearing of one interpretation (premil dispen.) and never was fully at peace with it. In seminary when I learned more about eschatology, my whole view opened up. I , too, have settled in on amil, but around here in the country, folks have never heard of it and think its heresy. Glad to see there are more like me out there!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
To whom were the promises made? To Abraham and to his seed (singular).

Who was this seed? Jesus Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seed is a collective noun, being both plural and singular, in different situations. I do not deny this. Nor does any commentator. If you read around on this, most will say not to make a big deal out of it. Paul's point is that the "blessings" of the AC come through one his seed. What it does not say is that the "great nation" and the "land" are redefined to be something other than the "great nation" and the "land." You have read more into the text than it actually says. As I said before, there are three planks to the AC and this is only one of them. You cannot simply pretend the other two don't exist because Paul does not address them here. Paul does not assert that they are no longer valid; he doesn't say anything at all about them. That is the point that is being missed here.

You are faced with a situation you have ignored. Paul has already said that the "seed of Abraham" is all who believe in him. That is definitely more than one. So already your argument is on tenuous grounds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul says the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. But you say that the seed is many. Paul says the seed is one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galatians 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Romans 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants [exact word as in Gal 3:16] that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, [exact word as in Gal 3:16] not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Each of the above highlighted words indicates the very point that you wish to deny and it comes from the apostle Paul. What is apparent to me is that you practice selective exegesis. It shows that "seed" can have different references. There is a seed that Abraham has by faith. There is a seed that Abraham has in view of Christ. There is also a seed that is defined as the one coming from his body who will become a great nation and will inherit the land 'olam. You cannot deny the existence of all three of these without denying the plain meaning of Scripture.

My recommendation would be to study some more on this issue. I will not continue to beat it around with you here because this is becoming a waste of time. Scripture says what it does and we disagree on that. We have both laid out our issues. I think you have some serious inconsistencies in your position as demonstrated by the exegesis of Scripture and I am sure that you think I have the same. I can live with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guess whose statement I'm going to accept as true <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question is not whether we believe Paul's the statement; it is our respective understandings of it. I think yours fails to take into account the whole of Scripture. If we had no OT promises and no OT reconfirmation of those promises in clear, explicit terms, than I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I simply cannot throw out the OT and pretend like it doesn't exist. I know you do not think you are and that is something you will have to wrestle through on your own. I have, in numerous places, listed passage after passage that you have never dealt with. They are as much the word of God as Gal 3 is and you just cannot jettison them in favor of your preconceived notions. I was thinking this morning, If people read the AC apart from their "spiritual" preconceptions, then there is only one conclusion you come to. I think it is the supposition that there is no coming kingdom that cause people to redefine everything. The text could not be clearer in the passages I listed.

Lastly, please do not tell me what I agree with and what I don't. I agree with Paul; I do not agree with you. I think Paul's writing very clearly leads to the position I hold. If I didn't think that I wouldn't hold it. However, my suspicion is that you, like most, have never really interacted with the academic side of dispensationalism are are rejecting the caricatures painted by some and passed along by unwitting and unread followers. My encouragement to you is simply to study these issues more in depth. After all, you will be a dispensationalist one day; might as well get a head start.

 

Pastor Larry wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> DT is built on progressive revelation. It is not about regressive at all. It is CT that denies, at least in reality, the idea of progressive revelation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you elaborate on your accusation of CT?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Could you elaborate on your accusation of CT?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. Progressive revelation (for those not familiar with the term) means that God did not reveal everything at once but rather revealed it through time, portion by portion. Each new stage of revelation builds on the old, carrying some principles with it and leaving others behind.

DT sees progressive revelation meaning that each stage in revelatory history tells us what man was responsible for at that time. It was his stewardship, or oikonomea. He was not responsible for the later revelation. For instance, Adam was not responsible for the Mosaic Law since it had not yet been revealed.

My point about CT is that in reality, they seem to view Scripture as one "drop" of revelation. For instance, when the question has been brought up here concerning the content of salvific faith in the OT, it has been asserted by many that the OT believers believed in "Christ to come." Yet not one person has been able to show a verse in the OT where someone is commanded to believe in "Christ to come." It had not yet been fully revealed. The OT believers were responsible for the revelation they had up to that point in time.

This further means that later revelation cannot contradict earlier revelation. It may clarify, build on it, or explain it; it cannot contradict it. Herein lies the rub with the Kingdom issue. The OT passages are explicit about what the Kingdom is and what we should expect from it. If NT revelation happened at the same time as OT revelation, there might conceivably be a case for CT (though I still think it would be tenuous at best). However, OT revelation prophesies very clearly concerning the nature of the kingdom and its beneficiaries. CT depends on those OT promises meaning something different than the OT texts indicate through the normal use of language; indeed, something contradictory to what OT believers understood them to be.

For instance, they say that the "land" Abraham was looking for as a part of the AC was a spiritual, heavenly land. The problem is that the "land" is very clearly defined in the OT and every OT person (even the Jew to this day) understood very clearly what the "land" was. Later revelation cannot contradict it. Now of course, Abraham was looking for a spiritual land; but that does not preclude the fact that the "land" as defined in the OT was a valid promise.

Consider as well the seed. It is popular to say that Abraham's seed is is spiritual posterity. Yet no straightforward reading of the Abrahamic covenant passages would render that conclusion. It depends on tacitly denying the very language that God used in the AC. The seed is expressly said to be a great nation (a multitude) who will come from his own body (not through his servant) and when he tried with Hagar, God corrected him to say it would come through Sarah. The point is that this is so specific that it cannot be trivialized away with "spiritual seed." While I do believe in the "spiritual seed" of Abraham, I cannot simply ignore the OT promises and pretend like they don't exist or they don't mean what the plain reading of the language leads us to believe. Later revelation about the seed of Abraham cannot contradict previous revelation.

 

Okay Pastor Larry.

I am not ignorant of the Scriptures because I emphasize one point--the pivotal point that Jesus alone is the rightful heir to the "promises" (plural).

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

What that means, confirmed by the Scriptures you quoted above, is this, no one can claim to be a descendant of Abraham unless he believes in Jesus. All who are of faith are descendants of Abraham, Jew and Gentile alike. There is no longer any covenant with the Jews. It was a temporary covenant that ended 2000 years ago. There are only the Promises made to Abraham and to his seed. And this promise was made to Abraham while he was yet an uncircumcised Gentile.

You can go ahead and talk about the earthly land all you want. Without those who are Jews by blood and not by faith, you are left without anyone to inherit it.

Yet we're told in Hebrews 11 that Abraham did not look for an earthly city, he, by faith, looked for a city which hath (true) foundations, whose builder and maker is God (alone).

In other words, Abraham looked for that heavenly city, the heavenly Jerusalem built upon the foundations of the Apostles and the Prophets.

We're told plainly in Galatians 4 that the heavenly Jerusalem is what was typified in Sarah, and Christians were typified by Isaac.

We're told plainly in Galatians 4 that the earthly Jerusalem, that spot of real estate in Palestine, is typified by Hagar, and those who are Jews by blood are typified by Ishmael.

We are told in a very straightforward, unambiguous manner to cast out the bondwoman AND her son.

DT is in direct contradiciton of the Scriptures for it demands that we accept and bless the bondwoman and her son. It is an anti-christ doctrine that leads those who are deceived thereby to believe they will be blessed if they accept not Christ alone, but must also accept the Jews.

DT is another gospel.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Aaron:
Just one last response to your remarks. You keep saying I am quibbling, can't see the forest because of the trees, straining at knats, the camel of the anti-christ etc. While all these adjectives are amusing, they ignore the questions I asked. You DID NOT answer my questions about Ezekiel, chapters 43, 47 and 48. Those chapters go into great detail about the temple, the river of water running OUT from the east gate, flowing into the Great Sea, turning the water of the Dead Sea sweet, the depth of the water, the fact that the location of the tribes and divisions of land are opposite in Ezekiel 48 from what they are in Joshua 13. You just dismissed all of that as "quibbling" and "straining at knats" and dismissed one of the greatest prophets of God and three chapters and 85 verses of scripture as, well, not important. And you do all this to maintain your amillenialism view. In effect, what you are doing is saying that all those chapters and verses of Holy Writ were meaningless and the prophet was just filling up space in the bible. I hold alot higher view of those writings than you do, I guess.

Anyway, like you said, you explained your point of view and I appreciate your response. We'll leave it at that.

Chris, you are forgiven. You said in your last post that you were tried of debating with people that feel their knowledge is superior. That could not have referred to me since, especially on this topic, I have stated repeatedly that I was new to the whole concept and was trying to learn more about the subject. But I get frustrated with some of the responses also, so I understand and the debate goes on. We do agree on almost everything else.(I love being a 20-point Calvinist).
And for learning more on the subject, a special thanks to Pastor Larry. His posts are VERY cogent and to the point. I don't see how anyone can refute anything he has been saying on this subject. At least no one has done so to this point and I don't expect that will be able to in the future. So, Pastor Larry, thanks for your very informative posts.
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DT is in direct contradiciton of the Scriptures for it demands that we accept and bless the bondwoman and her son. It is an anti-christ doctrine that leads those who are deceived thereby to believe they will be blessed if they accept the Jews.

DT is another gospel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your use of Gal 4 here is totally illegitimate. DT does not insist that we accept the bondwoman. You need to get a grasp on the issues.

I will not continue you anymore. DT is not another gospel and you know that. You may disagree with it but that does not make it another gospel. You need to take a break here and cool off a bit. Afterwards, if you want to discuss specific passages of Scripture, I will be happy to do so. It has not gone unnoticed that you have addressed very little Scripture outside of Gal 3, a passage which very easily lends itself to the position I am espousing. You cannot simply focus on one passage that you like and ignore the rest.

 

James,

I did not try to dismiss those prophecies at all. I wanted to focus on the pivotal aspects. It doesn't matter what you say about the spokes of a wheel. It won't get you anywhere unless it's attached to an axle, and the axle is what I wanted to illuminate.

However, a point by point commentary on the chapters in question would make for an interminable post and I like to keep them short--or they don't get read.

I am in agreement with Matthew Henry's commentaries on the chapters, so I will direct you there.


Matthew Henry Commentary on Ezekiel

 

Larry,

I don't need to cool off. I'm not hot. I simply posted the truth in a straightforward manner, called a spade a spade.

I'm sorry you were offended.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Larry,

I don't need to cool off. I'm not hot. I simply posted the truth in a straightforward manner, called a spade a spade.

I'm sorry you were offended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What offends me is when you call biblical doctrine another gospel. I have not called amillennialism that because I don't think it is. I think it is wrong. I think it unwittingly compromises some important truths. I think it fails to deal with the whole of Scripture. But I do not think it is another gospel. DT has been held in various forms for all of church history. That does not testify to its correctness but it certainly does to the fact that it is not another gospel. I do not believe that you have posted the truth and that is why I have entered into this discussion. There is another side to the story beside what you are posting and I am showing it.

 

Pastor Larry,
Thanks for claryfiying what you were saying (I didn't want to jump the gun on you, but you were saying what I thought you might be saying). I disagree with your conclusions however. Let me get some things squared away (we're in an ice/sleet storm right now) and I'll jump back in a little later on.