Eternity in Heaven with God and the Lamb

Hey I resemble that remark :laugh:.

 

Webster's definition of Heaven includes the place where God (deity) resides with the saints...and until Brother Bob responds, that is what I'm understanding his OP to mean.

I'm guessing you would have voted, "no", as you believe some believers will not reside with God forever. What kept me from voting at all was the wording "where He is now...", as where He is now, we won't be for eternity. In His presence, yes, but location, no.

 

Well you are right and wrong. I did vote no, but not for the reason you gave. Where saved individuals spend the 1000-year reign of Christ has nothing to do with the question. The question is where to we spend eternity. And ALL saved people will spend eternity in the same place in the presence of God.

So the reason you would vote no is the reason I voted no. God Himself is not going to spend eternity in "heaven" where He is now, so neither are we .

 

You deny God will live with man on New Earth? That seems unorthodox, BB, and denies Scripture. Why does creation groan for it's redemption...if it will not exist? What is the point of Jesus' second coming...if He 'aint stayin? There are a lot of problems with this view.

New Jerusalem descends from Heaven, so the "place" He is preparing for us will indeed be here some day.

Having said that, you needed a third option..."none of the above"

 

Jesus didn't say anything about "mansions" in John 14:2. That is a bad translation of the King James Version that has led to bad theology. Jesus isn't building mansions in heaven.

Jesus said "In My Father's House are many dwelling places". Jesus was referring to the Temple in Jerusalem (also called "My Father's House" in John 2:16). The "dwelling places" were small rooms at the Temple that the priests would use when they came to the city to do their priestly duties for two weeks (or so) a year.

When Jesus says "I go to prepare a place for you", He is referring to going to the cross so as to prepare a place for the disciples in the presence of God (just as the priests had "dwelling places" in the Temple at Jerusalem). His death of the cross will allow them (and us) to stand in the presence of God as His priests.

As far as whether it will be where God is now (heaven) or in the new heaven and new earth.....I'll have to think about that some more.

peace to youraying:

 

Isn't it part of the same vision (John's) you are using to support the literal dwelling and mansions in the present Heaven?

Scripture tells us that God will dwell WITH man...not the opposite. Scripture also tells us that the earth will be renewed. We are created to live on this planet by God...He deemed His creation "good". Sin flawed it, God will redeem it. We will NOT be spirits floating around in the clouds. The Bible tells us Christ will return to earth, so yes, It does state He will leave His throne and return.

Again, it was a vision that God gave John of the future.

A lot of things were considered heretical in the 19th century that weren't / aren't heretical, the doctine of a literal 1000 year being one of them.

 

You switching to the dark side, BB, with the Calvin / Spurgeon quotes?

Like with much of his soteriology, he's wrong.

If we are in the New Earth, can we put the lamb in the lion's cage at the zoo to play?

 

No doubt! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Personally, I tend to be a bit leery of a lot of what John Calvin believed, taught, and practiced.

[ I am not nearly as leery of what Spurgeon taught, and in fact, highly recommend two of his books to anyone - Lectures to My Students, and his unequaled, to this day, commentary on the Psalms - The Treasury of David, which should be "required reading" for any student in any Bible College or Seminary class on Psalms, IMO. ]

And I am not referring to what has mistakenly been labeled "the Five Points of Calvin" which should more properly be labeled the "Five Points of Dordt' as Calvin had been dead several years before Dordt, and this was much more the outgrowth of Beza, not Calvin. (But I have absolutely no intention of this becoming a C/A debate, by any means. Nor am I trying to derail the thread.)

By Calvin attempting to mold Geneva into a theocracy, the council that Calvin instituted had increased its power, so that sometimes the attempt of Calvin to temper the response to "heresy" was often ignored. The council, sentenced Michael Servetus, it's most famous 'ememy' to death and supposedly said they "put Servetus to death for his own good." (And unfortunately, Calvin, in the end, went along with this, just as with several others.)

My own guess is that Servetus probably was of a different opinion.

Ed

 

I believe you have oversimplified the beliefs of D.L. Moody. Moody, in fact was a committed, if not ardent, dispensationalist (as was R. A. Torrey, Moody's hand-picked successor), your cited quote notwithstanding, for you have, I believe, 'overinterpreted' what Moody was in fact, saying.

There is nothing inherently contradictory in believeing that the believer, upon death, goes to be with the Lord, in Heaven, and shall ever be with the Lord, and have God (Jesus) bring them with him at the 'rapture', to receive their resurrected bodies, "be changed" (I Cor. 15; I Thess. 4) and have the living "caught up" with them, the once 'dead'and now resurrected, saints of the body of Christ, and believing in a literal future millenium where the saints rule with Christ, as He "rules the nations with a rod of iron". The saints are still "ever with the Lord", and will be with Him, even in the New Jerusalem, "the Lamb's bride", in a new heaven and new earth, wherein dwells righteousness.

In fact, in the list you cite, the author rather disparagingly puts Moody in the direct line from Darby, to Moody, to Scofield, to Ironside to Dallas Seminary, a mistaken association of Ironside, BTW, for Dallas was the direct outgrowth, if you will, indirectly of Scofield, and directly of Chafer. H. A. Ironside, by contrast, was entirely self-educated, and never had any formal schooling, not even grade school, so could not have been trained anywhere, let alone Dallas Seminary, although he later became a 'Lecturer' there, at times, presenting the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures either two or three times, I believe, although I am not certain of the number from some 35 years ago that I read this.

And I don't believe that the teaching of Millenialism was ever "outlawed", at least by Baptists, although it was "outlawed", if you will, in Geneva. There is a great deal of difference in a teaching being 'outlawed' and one that is merely not as widely accepted, as some. Some Bible Colleges and Seminaries "outlaw" some teachings for the faculty and staff, but I know of none that can 'outlaw what someone may think, right or wrong.
And I would hazard a guess that it is still not accepted by most, including Baptists, although by more than in the past, I would think.

An example of a doctrine that is not universally held in Christendom would be the Baptist and Congregationalist idea of the local church not being subject to any other ecclesiatical authority, other than itself, God and Christ, and the Bible. Even Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are subject to conferences and synods, as I said, for an example.

The author you are quoting, in Point E., shows that the (millenium) view had been held previously, otherwise how could it be "revived". One cannot 'revive' something that never existed, before.

I have already stated, in another thread, that this pejorative 'slam' from the quoted author does not deserve a response. It still doesn't, and I'll not give it one here, either.

I'll try. "Pre-Millemium" doctrine did not start with Darby. That is a complete falsification by some. J.N. Darby can rightly be called the 'father' of modern dispensationalim, I guess, although I believe Paul precedes Darby by a few years, and is the 'author' of the 'theological usage' of the word "dispensation" in Eph. 3.

Premillenial views were, despite the ignoring of them by the author above, held by several of the early Apostolic and Church Fathers, as well. Irenaeus, the personal disciple of Polycarp, the personal disciple of the Apostle John, and Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Papias are probably the four best known advocates of this, although there were several others in the early church, among them, as well, 'lesser known lights' such as Pseudo-Barnabas, Methodius, Lactantius, Hippolitus, Theophilus, Cerinthus the Gnostic, and the Montanists. This is attested to by the outstanding church historians, Schaff, Scribner, and Latourettte, among others.

The A-millenial view was in fact, first widely proposed by Origen, the champion of allegorical interpretation, later accepted by Augustine. The arisal of A-mill, was in fact greatly influenced by 'Orthodox' opposition to the heresies of the Gnostics, Montanists, Donatists, and chiliaists, and the tendancy, then as now, of much sensationalism in eschatology, and the corresponding tendency, even back then, to "throw out the baby with the bath water", and A-Mill, in so doing, sought to remove the heresy from the church, with "guilt by association".

And it is simply not true that none held this from the third century, before Darby 'revived' this much later. Joachim of Fiore, a monk of the late 12th Century, certain Anabaptists, the Hugenots in general, and the Bohemian Brethren were all premillenial, as was the chiliastic Servetus, which not doubt, partly helped him to an untimely end at the stake where things really heated up.

Joseph Mede (early 17th Century) and Isaac Newton in England; in America, Jonathan Edwards, and the Puritans, Increase and Cotton Mather were also believers in a literal Millenium, some more outspoken than others. While 'millenialism' was not at that time greatly widespread, it was and has been around for many centuries and long before Darby, dating back to the Ante-Nicene times.

So in fact, one could well say that A-Mill was the 'new kid' who 'evolved' into the 500# gorilla, I guess. And in fact, "the Old Time Doctrine" is either what is known as Preterism, which I totally reject, or, the one I do accept, a belief in a literal future millenium. :thumbs:

Ed

 

Apples and oranges, Paul’s dispensation is the mystery of the revelation of the gospel in which ALL will be gathered together in one, of the same promise in Christ Eph1. Also you’d probably be wrong in guessing that Darby could be called the father of modern dispensation….as I don’t think he had any blood relations to the little girl he stole the idea from. :laugh: :laugh: Sorry, it's late and I couldn't resist. :laugh:

 

This is partly true, as far as it goes, but also partly false, because it does not go far enough. Paul does uses this word in the way you are suggesting in Eph. 3: 6-12. However, Paul also speaks of at least two 'dispensations' (stewardships) in addition to this phrasing, as well- "the dispensation of the fullness of times" (Eph. 1:9-11) and "the dispensation of the grace of God" (Eph. 3: 2-5) in which he speaks of "in other ages" where this was not known to the sons of men, but is now revealed to the holy apostles and prophets. The "ages", here in context, can only mean something different, and the usage of the plural, obviously is speaking of more than one.

Ryrie, I think, still has the best concise definition I've ever heard on this, when he 'defined' adispensation as "a distinguishable economy (or administration) in the outworking of God's purpose." This is certainly consistent with Scripture, IMO.

Surely no one who is serious about the teaching of Scripture really thinks that we are not in this time since the cross "under" the same administration as Israel was "under the law". And Israel "under the law" [which, BTW, never applied to the Gentiles, for they never had it (Rom. 2: 12-15)], was administered differently than was Israel "before the law", as well as the Ante-deluvian age from Adam through the times of Noah. While each and every person has always been justified only by faith in God (Hab. 2:4, Rom. 4: Heb. 11) the responses and responsibilities have not always been under the same principles. This is the extremely limited summary, in a nutshell.

The "urban legend" about Margaret Macdonald is exactly that, an urban legend.

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-margaret-mcdonald.html

One could, I guess, attribute some influence from William Irving to Darby and the teaching of a 'Pre-mill, Pre-Trib rapture' although I am aware of no such influence. There had been references to such earlier, including that of Jesuit Priest Emmanuel Lacunza, who in 1812, published his book titled The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty where he taught this; a book written circa 1744 in England, and published in Philadelphia in 1788 (very possibly by a Morgan Edwards, in both cases, who then may have migrated to KY??) openly advocated this, the discovery of these two items of which, BTW cost So. Baptist Evangelist John Bray, a Preterist, and and opposer of Dispensational and millenial teaching, 500 smackers each, by their discovery. He learned his lesson after the second time at 500 bucks, and later was forced to admit that there were occasions of this teaching all the way back to the second century. Puritans Cotton Mather, father Increase Mather, and perhaps even grandfather Richard Mather, although I do not know for certain, in the case of Richard, all were strong advocates of a version of pre-Mill, and certainly were well before John Darby, and his time, as Cotton died in 1728. BTW, Increase Mather authored over 100 books, in his lifetime.

In an interesting sidelight, I just found out that a KY Baptist Morgan Edwards settled in 1788 in KY, not too far from where I live, and preached extensively in and around the area. My own home church was constituted in 1782, and it is very possible that Edwards preached in the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church, where I was born, saved, and am still a member of. This Morgan Edwards also taught a Pre-mill rapture. I wonder if the two Morgan Edwards are one and the same, as the KY one died in 1795? I suspect they may well be. I would certainly be interesting to know if The Pre- trib rapture was actually preached in my own church, well before Darby was even born. It certainly was preached in KY.

Finally, Darby (who was a one-man 'paper factory', writing many books and well over a thousand letters), himself, published a book in 1827, that presented the teaching of a Pre-Trib rapture. That was three years before Margaret MacDonald had her 'vision'. I suggest it would have been kinda' difficult for Darby to have gotten this from her, three years before it happened. You think actually, her readings might have included Darby, among others, and that may have influenced her dream, rather than the other way around? Just wonderin"!

Just for info and a bit of trivia. John R. Rice was rightly called the "Twentieth Century's 'mightiest pen'" due to the large number of books and tracts that he wrote in his lifetime, and the widespread publication and use of such. One could well call John Nelson Darby "the mightiest pen of the 19th Century", and Increase Mather "the mightiest pen of the late 17th and early 18th century", in the same vein.

Ed

 

Brother Bob, I have already shown that at least four of the most well known earliest "church fathers" (as well as some lesser known), namely Papias, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, who all taught this. In fact, Irenaeus even touches on this in his famous work, Against Heresies, where I believe he refers to any belief that is "anti-millenial", in this case meaning "Preterist", as in fact, heresy. Although I am not willing to go anywhere near that far, these, and some others obviously considered millenialism an "orthodox" belief. Do we decide on whether or not any doctrine is 'orthodox' by taking a poll?

Why is this any different than the "supression" of the teaching of "justification by faith alone", which was likewide, widely, I would add, "surpressed for years and years" before first Staupitz, and then the far more widely known Luther brought this to the forefront? Would any here not consider this as "true doctrine"? (Rhetorical question! Don't answer that! :laugh

I mean, after all, one could only find a few Anabaptists, Albigenses, Waldenses, some Hugenots, and a few other groups, at that time, who believed what the predominant church thought was this heresy. Did that make it so? I say it did not; I can speak for no other.

In fact, one can find Baptists today, even on this board, who do not believe "faith alone" is enough to justify one before God. They just usually phrase it differently, to 'cover' their true sentiments.

Ed