Amillenialism

Our discussion reminded me of a chapter in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

I've adapted it to be more pertinent. Suffer me to jab a little .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Well, but he was the wisest man, anyway; because the widow she told me so, her own self.”

“I doan’ k’yer what de widder say, he warn’t no wise man nuther. He had some er de dad-fetchedes’ ways I ever see. Does you know ‘bout dat chile dat he ‘uz gwyne to chop in two?”

“Yes, the widow told me all about it.”

“Well, den! Warn’ dat de beatenes’ notion in de worl‘? You jes’ take en look at it a minute. Dah’s de stump, dah--dat’s one er de women; heah’s you—dat’s de yuther one; I’s Sollermun; en dish yer dollar bill’s de chile. Bofe un you claims it. What does I do? Does I shin aroun’ mongs’ de neighbors en fine out which un you de bill do b’long to, en han’ it over to de right one, all safe en soun’, de way dat anybody dat had any gumption would? No; I take en whack de bill in two, en give half un it to you, en de yuther half to de yuther woman. Dat’s de way Sollermun was gwyne to do wid de chile. Now I want to ast you: what’s de use er dat half a bill?—can’t buy noth’n wid it. En what use is a half a chile? I wouldn’ give a dern for a million un um.”

“But hang it, Jim, you’ve clean missed the point--blame it, you’ve missed it a thousand mile.”

“Who? Me? Go ‘long. Doan’ talk to me ‘bout yo’ pints. I reck’n I knows sense when I sees it; on dey ain’ no sense in such doin’s as dat. De ‘spute warn’t ‘bout a half a chile, do ‘spute was ‘bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a ‘spute ‘bout a whole chile wid a half a chile doan’ know enough to come in out’n de rain. Doan’ talk to me ‘bout Sollermun, Huck, I knows him by de back.”

“But I tell you you don’t get the Point.”

“Blame de point! I reck’n I knows what I knows. En mine you, de real pint is down furder—it’s down deeper. It lays In de way Sollermun was raised. You take a man dat’s got on’y one or two chillen; is dat man gwyne to be waseful o’ chillen? No, he ain’t; he can’t ‘ford it. He know how to value ‘em. But you take a man dat’s got ‘bout five million chulen runnin’ roun’ de house, en it’s diffunt. He as soon chop a chile in two as a cat. Dey’s plenty mo’. A chile er two, mo’ or less, warn’t no consekens to Sollermun, dad fetch him!”

I never see such a dispensational premillennialist. If he got a notion in his head once, there warn’t no getting it out again. He was the most down on Solomon of any dispensational premillennialist I ever see. So I went to talking about other kings, and let Solomon slide. I told about Louis Sixteenth that got his head cut off in France long time ago; and about his little boy the dolphin, that would ‘a’ been a king, but they took and shut him up in jail, and some say he died there.

“Po’ little chap.”

“But some says he got out and got away, and come to America.”

Dat’s good! But he’ll be pooty lonesome—dey ain’ no kings here, is dey, Huck?”

“No.”

“Den he cain’t git no situation. What he gwyne to do?”

“Well, I don’t know. Some of them gets on the police, and some of them learns people how to talk French.”

“Why, Huck, doan’ do French people talk de same way we does?”

“No, Jim; you couldn’t understand a word they said—not a single word.”

“Well, now, I be ding-busted! How do dat come?”

“I don’t know; but it’s so. I got some of their jabber out of a book S’pose a man was to come to you and say Polly-voo-franzy--what would you think?”

“I wouldn’t think nufln; I’d take en bust him over de head...I wouldn’t ‘low no [one] to call me dat.”

“Shucks, it ain’t calling you anything. It’s only saying, do you know how to talk French?”

“Well, den, why couldn’t he say it?”

“Why, he is a-saying it. That’s a Frenchman’s way of saying It.”

“Well, it’s a blame ridicklous way, en I doan’ want to hear no mo’ ‘bout It. Dey ain’ no sense in it.”

“Looky here, Jim; does a cat talk like we do?”

“No, a cat don’t.”

“Well, does a cow?”

“No, a cow don’t, nuther.”

“Does a cat talk like a cow, or a cow talk like a cat?”

“No, dey don’t.”

“It’s natural and right for ‘em to talk different from each other, ain’t it?”

“Course.”

“And ain’t it natural and right for a cat and a cow to talk different from us?”

“Why, mos’ sholy it is.”

“Well, then, why ain’t it natural and right for a Frenchman to talk different from us? You answer me that.”

“Is a cat a man, Huck?”

“No.”

“Well, den, dey ain’t no sense in a cat talkin’ like a man. Is a cow a man?—er Is a cow a cat?”

“No, she ain’t either of them.”

“Well, den, she ain’t got no business to talk like either one en the yuther of ‘em. Is a Frenchman a man?”

“Yes.”

“Well, den! Dad blame it, why doan’ he talk like a man? You answer me dat!”

I see It warn’t no use wasting words—you can’t learn a dispensational premillennialist to argue. So I quit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Is anyone going to answer the charges I made to the Amills about Mt 24 and Lk 21? I have been away for a few days.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Our discussion reminded me of a chapter in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

I've adapted it to be more pertinent. Suffer me to jab a little .

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't read all this but I am pretty sure that my seminary education didn't include Huckleberry Finn. Most here don't consider him a reputable theological source.

 

You can't learn a DT-ian to argue. So I quit!

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Would Huck Finn be one of those pan-millenialists I keep hearing about?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
You can't learn a DT-ian to argue. So I quit!
[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will debate anything you want to debate as long as you want to do it exegetically from what Scripture says.

 

Aaron:
Sorry, but you are the one who refused to answer the questions. You beat around the bush, referred me to Matthew Henry, evaded the points of the chapters in eziekel, said that a prophet of God writing 3 chapters, and 85 verses of scripture was nothing but quibbling, trifles, not important, etc.

Now, I don't know about you, but I believe the Prophet Eziekel was not just trying to fill up the bible with a bunch of nonsense. I think what he wrote was for a purpose, and to dismiss it with a verse from the New Testament and then tell me that I was dealing with the spokes of the wheel and not the main hub was argument by intimidation -- except it didn't intimidate me.

By the way, I know I am no scholar like Matthew Henry or John Gill (one of my very favorite people) but read their commentaries on chapters 43 and 44 and try to keep a straight face. They are so far-fetched they are beyond recognition of the texts. You read those chapters for what the plain, common, normal understanding of what the words mean, or you spend you whole commentary like Henry and Gill did and come up with absolute nonsense. I don't see how they could have been serious with that stuff.

You are right on one point. The discussion is rather pointless because minds seem to be made up. So you go on thinking, as the CT do, that Satan has been BOUND since the Cross and CANNOT stop the gospel from being preached. Well, he has been bound, but not really bound. He can do SOME things. Now, talk about a stretch of interpretation. It seems to me that Satan has been BOUND or he hasn't. I look at the 20th century and see evidence that Satan is like a roaring lion and is not only not bound, but extremely active and loose. Maybe you don't agree with the CT on that point, but all of them I have read take that position.

Once again, until the last couple of posts, it was informative discussing with you, but the point has been reached where further discussion is useless.
So, convinced CT, have a great day and God Bless.
James2

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

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


I will debate anything you want to debate as long as you want to do it exegetically from what Scripture says.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sounds great. Name the point you wish to discuss.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Aaron:
...You beat around the bush, referred me to Matthew Henry, evaded the points of the chapters in eziekel, said that a prophet of God writing 3 chapters, and 85 verses of scripture was nothing but quibbling, trifles, not important, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. I said I didn't want to quibble over trifles, meaning I did not wish to discuss ad nauseum points of which the interpretations depend on the pivotal issue of who the seed of Abraham is.

Have you ever had to prove theorems in geometery. You were shown lines and segements existing in certain relationships and told to prove that a=d, but before you begin you were told that c=d. So you begin your proof on the premise that c=d and reach a certain conclusion. But if you merely ignored what was given and said, "It looks more to me like c=b," then following the same rules of logic you would wind up with a completely erroneous conclusion.

So I'm not interested your trying to discern the relationships between a, b, c and d until you accept the premise that was given at the beginning that c=d.

It is given to us by Paul in a very straightforward manner who the one true seed of Abraham is. If you can't accept that, it is vain for us to proceed any further.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
It is given to us by Paul in a very straightforward manner who the one true seed of Abraham is. If you can't accept that, it is vain for us to proceed any further.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen and amen.

Ephes. 2:11-22 (ESV)
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— [12] remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [13] But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [14] For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
[15] by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, [16] and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. [17] And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. [18] For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. [22] In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

 

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Sounds great. Name the point you wish to discuss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already have. I posted a brief discussion of Jer 31, a discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, Romans 9-11, Gal 5, and several other things that you have ignored.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
So I'm not interested your trying to discern the relationships between a, b, c and d until you accept the premise that was given at the beginning that c=d.

It is given to us by Paul in a very straightforward manner who the one true seed of Abraham is. If you can't accept that, it is vain for us to proceed any further.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems you want to argue that the c=d means Israel equals the church. That is a fallacious assumptions so the rest of your theorem is going to be flawed. It is interesting how every one cites NT passages that the Jew and Gentile are in one body (as Chris has again) while every Dispensationalist is going to agree with that. The issue is not what the state of the NT church is and who it is made up of. The issue is where are the promises of God to a particular group of people going to be fulfilled -- to the group they were made to or to another. I have cited a number of people who defend the fact that Israel does not, yea cannot, equal the church because it renders the NT senseless. No one wants to address that. Why not?

 

Amills would also have to say that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70. Seeing how they want to put Mt 24 and Lk 21 as descriptive of the destruction of Jerusalem, Revelation 6-19 (a parallel passage) would have to be lumped in there also. However, the Amills refuse to address the previous posts concerning these passages. Instead, they cling to a few passages that (although only one correct one exists) could possibly be understood in different ways. The whole of Scripture must be the authority.

Paul is specifically arguing that grace/promise is superior to law/guilt. The promise to Abraham that the world would be blessed through his seed (plural but ultimately realized through one - namely Christ). Paul says in Romas 9 that the Jews have the oracles (God's Word), covenants, ... and Messiah. They truly are a people of rich heritage.

I do not understand how the Amills cling to the fact that Christ is the fulfillment of what Paul was talking about in the Galatians passage. It is very clear. Promise is greater than the law. Christ (the fulfillment of the promise) is superior to the law. Owning land has nothing to do with salvation. How was that included? Also, the Jews will not obtain the land in the way God always intended until look on Him whom they have pierced and mourn as for an only Son and in repentance and faith believe in Christ. So, the Jews that obtain the land promise are Jews that have embraced Christ. So either way you look at it, the land promise is still intact. In Romans 11, Paul said that the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable. The land promise was also given through Jacob, not just Abraham. Those promises were made PRIOR to the law. How could they possibly be conditional? That is what the law was about. The Abraham promises were superior, remember?

Premillenialism is the only consistently right system of thought. Amills only prostitute the biblical record of what Christ and His apostle and the prophets before them said. I know the seriousness of these charges, but many issues have been brought up that I would like an Amill to answer. None of the above is meant to be insulting. I believe there is only one interpretation of Scripture that can be correct. I know that Premillenialism is it.

 

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


I already have. I posted a brief discussion of Jer 31, a discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, Romans 9-11, Gal 5, and several other things that you have ignored.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pick one.

 

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


Pick one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have always maintained Jer 31, when dealt with in historical-grammatical exegesis cannot be overcome by amillennialists. In several places on this board, I have laid out why that is so. Do a search on Jer 31 and you will probably find them.

Of course, Jer 31 grows out of the Abrahamic covenant, and in a sense, explains why the Abrahamic cannot be interpreted as the amills desire.

 

Discussion of Jer 31 forthcoming. Stay tuned!

 

Pastor Larry,

In the future please state your case or post the links to your arguments. I would really rather not be required to perform searches and read multiple posts in order to find out what your stand is.

You chose Jer 31, that's great. I will pick one or two points that you have made previously about Jer 31 to discuss. Let us please limit our discussion at this time to these points.

You stated that because the sun, moon and stars have remained in their fixed order that Israel has remained a nation. My rebuttal to that would be Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost where he said that what had just happened was in fulfillment of a prophecy of Joel that says: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Acts 2
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is evident from Peter's statement (unless he lied, and what had just happened was not that) that at least the sun and moon have changed (but I believe the stars also by implication). Now since we see no change in the physical sun and moon, the question comes to mind: What is meant by the sun and moon? There must be some "spiritual" understanding of that, and indeed there is.


You also insist that we must from the text of Jer 31 itself glean our Israel = Church theology.

But let me ask you this: How could Matthew discern from the text itself that verses 15 - 17 referred to the slaughter of the innocents? From the text itself, don't forget.