Millennial Kingdom

Welcome to tha BB---I’ve personally been going between post-trib (historic) mill & amill for a while. I honestly don’t know if I’ll ever be fully convinced 1 way or the other. But I do like the fact u came out swingin with ur very 1st post on tha BB—keep up the in-depth Bible study—God Bless!

 

Well, someday you will know how it ends. That, at least, should offer some comfort.

...Bob

 

I became premillenial somewhat dispensational because no other system can explain the last few Chapters of Ezekiel regarding the temple.

 

Not a problem brother. You don't need to answer.

And my post is really not a challenge except to say that 2 Corinthians 1:10 presents deliverance from death as a past, present and future event in God's schematic.

Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us;

Our problem (well, mine anyway) is trying to put it all together.

There have been many views here at the BB, from all the views of preterism to all the views of futurism, none seem IMO to "fit the bill" without a problem or two.

The underlying difficulty seems to be discerning literal vs allegory vs metaphor.

For the most part I take the a moderate dispensational futurist view with the 1000 years of Revelation 20 as literal.


HankD

 

Ezekiel 47:12
"By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing."

Revelation 22:2
"in the middle of its street on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

It seems to me that the symbolical imagery in both passsages is describing the same thing. The glory and perfection of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of the Lamb, in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Taking Ezekiel's temple in a strictly literal fashion poses insurmountable problems in my estimation. The reinstitution of animal sacrifices for one. I know dispensationalists claim these will be "memorial sacrifices", but this is going against their very own system of literal interpretation. The text literally says the reason for performing these sacrifices is so that "I will accept you" Ezek. 43:27. This is the language of atonement, not memorial.

We also read of Ezekiel's temple that no uncircumcised gentile will ever enter the sanctuary. (44:7; 44:9). This would seem to be going backwards, setting up once again a wall of separation. I think these passages are better interpreted again in light of Revelation....

Rev. 21:27
"and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

 

I assume you have been reading Dr. Riddlebarger?

I was of a similar Amillenial persuasion. It's how I was raised. I was raised as an Amillenial Southern Baptist Pastor's kid.

However, no one has an adequate answer for that temple. Even Matthew Henry dances around that one calling it the most difficult part of all of scripture.

I believe there is a seperation between Jews and Gentiles. I believe that Gentiles are simply grafted onto the tree and that God's kingdom is a Jewish kingdom. Christ was pleased with the woman who said "the dogs long for scraps from the masters table" for instance.

Gentiles are not as blessed as the Jews and are not the people who God chose to reveal himself to the world through.

God's law is forever. Because it is good. Every sanctified soul will obey the law of God naturally.

All prophecies must be fullfilled. So, during the millenial reign of Christ there will be a Temple in Jerusalem exactly like the one described in Ezekiel and the Jewish law will be perfectly carried out for 1000 years.

That's the way I understand it.

 

Charles Spurgeon, preaching from Ezekiel:

"I wish never to learn the art of tearing God’s meaning out of His own Words. If there is anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage—a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away—it must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land and that a king is to rule over them." —"The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews"

 

Nice Jerome. We agree on something. :jesus:

 

I'm simply amazed at Spurgeon's flexibility. I bet we could find quotes from him to support everything from giving to PETA to drilling in ANWAR. :smilewinkgrin:

[Reminder: Non-baptists are not allow to post in the part of the BB that is for "Baptist only". Feel free to post elsewhere]

 

They didn't call thim the prince of preachers for nothing. :laugh:

 

I have been told I can longer post in the Baptist sections on this forum, which is odd since I am a credo-baptist, and my church is credo-baptist, and I'm not sure how my contributions would endanger anyone, but oh well....

It was a pleasure getting to me you all.

 

Too bad, I was enjoying your posts. But rules are rules. I don't know much about C&MA churches but if they don't have the word Baptist in the name, they probably aren't Baptists. I think if you identify yourself as a Baptist (not "credo-baptist" since that would define any number of non-baptists) attending a non-baptist church, you can continue to post. but check me on that.

 

Bro Rick,

You can still post on the BB in the Christian Debate and Christian Fellowship Forums which are for all Christians.

See you there?

HankD

 

This is my last post in this section as I just wanted to address your above post.

I'm not sure what significance having the word "Baptist" in a church name really means as it pertains to this policy. There's so many different shades of belief among churches that call themselves "Baptist", from Reformed 1689 confessional churches to independent backwoods churches passing around rattlesnakes. No offense intended here, and I do very much consider myself a Baptist. I would affiliate my beliefs generally with the 1689 London Confession. And then when I see folks freely posting in these forum sections that openly deny original sin, I have to wonder what good the name "Baptist" in their church is doing them.

Yes indeed! If I am still welcome, that is. Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, I just don't understand some things.

 

Niether do I. Welcome to Baptist Board.

 

Sorry to hear that. I'm new here as well. However, I am an active member of an SBC church.

I looked at your profile. It appears you belong to a non denominational church that is Baptist in all but name?

 

What is a Credo-Baptist? I've never heard of that before.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credobaptism

 

You are a credo baptist if you are a baptist.

If you believe that baptism is an ordinance for those who have already come to faith in Christ and confesses faith in him you are a credo-baptist.

The opposing view is called a paedo baptist. One who baptizes infants.