Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes a Spirit does not have flesh and bone. He used Thomas as a faithless one for an example. It was the same Son of man, Jesus who said his flesh profits for nothing .When called good master based upon what the eyes see like that of doubting Thomas It is impossible to serve two masters …..the things seen the temporal... and the things not seen the eternal .Jesus gave the glory to the unseen holy place of faith .And replied only God not seen is good.
When he left knowing the one time demonstration of the unseen work of "pouring out His Spirit as if he was poring out literal blood. .He left us clear instruction that even though some did know Christ in that way from then on forever more we know him no more according to what the eyes see .the temporal. We walk by faith.(the unseen)
The presciption is given in 2 Corinthains 4:18 and the working out of that commandment (know we no man after the flesh) is found in the next chapter verse 16
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now "henceforth" know we him no more.2 Corinthains 5:16
God is not a man as us and neither is there any daysman as a fleshly mediator "good master" set between man seen, the temporal, and God not seen the eternal which Jesus refused to acknowledge . Christ refused to be part of that an abomination of desecration and stand in the holy place reserved for the father.
No, it is not because everyone at that judgement goes to Hell. Every single person there. So you are saying that some people who are saved go to Hell.
That is false. The 1st century church's position was that Christ would return, visibly at some point in the future. That is not the position of Preterists or Amillennialist. Both of these views remove the requirement that the angels clearly give for Jesus' return at the Ascension. That every eye would see Him. Jesus returns for a specific reason and He doesn't flit back in and out of the world before that point without anyone knowing He is here.
Augustine formulated Amillenialism in the 4th century. The nascent Catholic Church was virulently antisemitic and Amillenialism was formulated to take God's promises away from the Jews. That was the entire reason for the invention of that particular eschatological position.
Nobody took nothing from anybody. Peter stated the promises were being fulfilled in his day:
(Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself." )
(Acts 3:24 And all the prophets, from Samuel and those who followed him, have spoken about and announced these days. )
(Acts 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, 'And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.' )
All prophecy "from Samuel and those who followed him" was fulfilled in the days of vengeance.
(Luke 21:22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.)
Luke 21:22 is not saying THIS is the SUM TOTAL of all of prophecy.
It is saying, THIS ASPECT must ALSO be [have been] fulfilled (at this time), in order for "ALL" prophecy (that is written) to be fulfilled. There is to be no skipping over some of it to get to the conclusion [/the concluding aspects] of it. That is the point of this sentence in v.22.
Here's what I'd written in a different post/thread, on Acts 3 (the other part of your post):
[quoting my post]
Acts 3:21 [speaking to "ye men of Israel," v.12 (unsaved persons as noted in v.13-15,17,19)] then states: "whom indeed it behooves heaven to receive until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from the age." [in contrast to that which He had theretofore kept "hidden in God"/was as yet undisclosed]
In vv.13 and 26 the phrase "His Servant Jesus" (they had not been expecting the "suffering servant" aspects of His Person, only the "reigning-in-power King" aspects, though both aspects had been prophesied in the OT; chpt 3's point is Peter telling them they'd overlooked the former of these two aspects ['His Suffering Servant'], and thus had a hand [themselves] in fulfilling that very thing, vv.13-15), but this was not saying that "everything" was at this point in time (the time of Acts 3) fully fulfilled; and...
...there are TWO "raise" senses spoken of in Acts 3... v.15 speaking of His being "raised from the dead," but the other being "raised" to a position of prominence BEFORE His death (that is, to the position of 'a Prophet like unto Moses'...'raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me [/Moses]; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you' and 'UNTO YOU FIRST God, having raised up [to a position of prominence BEFORE His death] His Servant Jesus, SENT him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities'). The "ALL things which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets" (meaning, OT prophecies) have not yet been fully fulfilled, but remain for a yet-future time
[His "death" and "suffering" was the aspect they had missed/overlooked... additionally, there were some things that it was necessary for God to "keep hidden" ("hidden in God") until AFTER His "death/resurrection," per 1Cor2:7-8]
[end quoting that post]
And besides, since when do we decide the truthfulness of a position by how old it is rather than how well it accords with Scripture?
Since it is clear that God redeems Israel in the end, (that is what the entire book of Revelation is about) it is clear that verse is not saying the Jews get relegated to the dust bin and the Church replaces Israel. The Church does not replace Israel. That is what Preterism and Amillenialism are all about. Trying to assert that the Church replaces Israel. That is a fairly repugnant concept.
Replacement Theology is most decidedly not a straw man. There are plenty of churches and people preaching it these days. It's quite fashionable. It's also quite false. But there are few people out there these days that care about sound doctrine. They worry more about society and it's views.
You are teaching Replacement Theology. You can't use Romans 2 as some kind of proof text for Israel being replaced. Paul is talking about a person's salvational position, that salvation is not just for the Jews since Christ came. Romans 11 completely negates the idea that the Church is a replacement for Israel.
Romans 11:1-27 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”?4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”
9 And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
If one is not correct in their eschatological positions, they will be messed up, doctrinally, in every other area. Replacement Theology artificially removes specific promises to both Jesus, and Israel that have not been fulfilled yet. That position is not a little mistake and it is a position that is extremely unwise to adopt.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Sad you have discounted many of those from Reformed Tradition as being non believers as well as many independent Baptist churches and all those who have escaped dispensational teachings infused into American churches by Nelson Darby
I venture you probably never done a single day of deep research (primary sources) of the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the years beyond, nor have you studied Convenantal Theology
Someone with this view is not someone I will have any type of discussion with, nor do I want not to read their words, I guard my heart against such dogmatism which invariably leads to making statements like the bolded one above .... a very sad statement indeed, probably one of the most tragic I have read on CC in a long time ...yet perhaps indicative of someone with tremedous uncertainity of their own position since the schema has to fit together in a "oh so perfect" fashion.
Farewell.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Peter is speaking to "unsaved" Jews [/Israel] that what they perceived as proof that Jesus WAS NOT the promised Messiah [they killed Him off, further proof, in their minds] was actually part of the "prophecies" being fulfilled at that time (the days of His "rejection"),
1 Samuel 8:7 -
"And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."
Jesus had also spoken of this when He "foreshewed His death" in His parable of Luke 19:12,15,17,19 (because, as verse 11 said in the preface, "they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear"), where v.14 says, "But his citizens [of the "a certain nobleman," v12] hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us." [<--this, reflective of the FIRST of Joseph's TWO dreams... the FIRST dream representing Jesus' first advent (and His 'rejection' and the 'separate from his brothers' aspect); the SECOND dream representing Jesus' second advent (FOR the earthly MK age--far-future to the first aspect); so Peter in Acts 3 is saying, this "rejection" aspect you have overlooked/missed (and thus "fulfilled" it by your own hands)… THESE DAYS (of His "rejection") have also been "written about/prophesied of"... but it is not saying ALL prophecies concerning Him (and His "reign") are fully fulfilled by the time of this Acts 3 context/setting]
U
UnderGrace
Guest
btw it is remnant theology not replacement which is the true biblical lens.......but the election obtained it (Romans 11:7) the "election" ( a group not individuals) being another term for the remnant.
...as long as we do not disregard what else is said about them [/Israel], further down:
25 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you may not be wise in yourselves: A hardening in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles may come in [G1525]. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it has been written:
“The One Delivering will come out of Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is the covenant from Me to them,
when I shall take away their sins.”
28 For as regards the gospel, they are enemies on account of you; but as regards election, beloved on account of the patriarchs [/the fathers]. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
25 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you may not be wise in yourselves: A hardening in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles may come in [G1525]. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it has been written:
“The One Delivering will come out of Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is the covenant from Me to them,
when I shall take away their sins.”
28 For as regards the gospel, they are enemies on account of you; but as regards election, beloved on account of the patriarchs [/the fathers]. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
All through the OT it is only a remnant saved not the whole nation. Same with the Gentiles, not all saved.
I surprised U.G. that you would stoop this low in ad hominems.
And Rom 11:7 is referring to the remnant of Jewish believers. See the context...
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
(Rom 11:1)
In the Matt22 passage, verses 7-8 supply a specific SEQUENCE:
This is one of the SEQUENCE issues that clarify what takes place when.
- with verse 7 referring to the events of 70ad ('[the king...] was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city'--see also Lk21:23,20 in the "70ad events" section of the Olivet Discourse [Lk21:12-24]), and...
- then verse 8 telling of what happens AFTER THAT, where it goes on to say, "THEN SAITH HE to His servants"... Jesus was in Heaven during the "after 70ad" events, recall... yet this passage states "THEN SAITH HE to his servants...". What we have in The Revelation, is (as stated in verse 1), "The Revelation of Jesus Christ WHICH GOD GAVE UNTO HIM [unto Jesus], TO SHEW UNTO His servants [see 7:3] things which must come to pass [4:1 (1:19c--the "future" aspects of the Book)] IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]..." [not events which would unfold over the course of some 2000 yrs; and not things which would take place immediately (even immediately AFTER the 70ad events)], and there He discloses FURTHER INFORMATION on THAT very subject...
This is one of the SEQUENCE issues that clarify what takes place when.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Yeah well, even a kitten has its day I guess,
When people state that if one gets eschatology wrong and most likely the rest of their doctrine is wrong is a really tragic remark and completely unfounded in the ecclesia, the spiritual church where I know many of the Reformed Faith are born again in Christ and hold to a Covenant Theological understanding of scripture with orthodox preterism.
From my point of view that would mean you, @eternally-gratefull @dcontroversal et. al., have most your doctrine wrong and I know that is absolutely not true....so in that light I was not defending myself only but all of us with different points of view on eschatology....the most debated part of the bible.
The starting point for correct understanding of all scripture, first and foremost is the Gospel, get that wrong then I might be concerned.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
I would agree on this since the many of the first century church fathers messed up the Gospel big time.