A Few of the Scriptures that Make me Post-Millennial

  • 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.

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#21
Adam Clarke, (1762-1832) Methodist Commentary. This being the 3rd representative of Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists from the past. All three men of God were post-millennial.

"Both these parables are prophetic, and were intended to show, principally, how, from very small beginnings, the Gospel of Christ should pervade all the nations of the world, and fill them with righteousness and true holiness." Comment on Matt. 13:33

"Of the increase of his government-this Prince has a government, for he has all power both in heaven and in earth: and his government increases, and is daily more and more extended, and will continue till all things are put under his feet. His kingdom is ordered-every act of government regulated according to wisdom and goodness; is established so securely as not to be overthrown; and administered in judgment and justice, so as to manifest his wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and truth. Reader, such is that Jesus who came into the world to save sinners! Trust in HIM!" Comment on Isaiah 9:7

For a run down of the post-mil position through history, it can be found online:

https://postmillennialworldview.com/2019/05/03/preterism-in-history/
 

Dirtman

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#23
Really just read 2Peter chapter 3.
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#24
John Gill (1697-1771), Baptist Historic Premil does not take Ezekiel 40-48 literally, nor does he insert a 2500+ year gap between the 69th and 70th week in Daniel. Inserting a non-existent gap is a corruption of God's word and is only done to fit a man-made scheme of prophecy.

In the introduction to Ezekiel 40-48 Dr. Gill writes:
"The Jews dream of a third temple to be built, by their vainly expected Messiah; but nothing is more clear than that the true Messiah was to come into the second temple, and by that give it a greater glory than the former ever had; as is evident from Hag 2:6 and, according to Malachi, he was to come suddenly into his temple, which could be no other than the then present one, Mal 3:1, and into which Jesus came, and where he often appeared and taught, as well as entered into it with power and authority, as the Lord and proprietor of it; by which he appeared to be the true Messiah, as by many other characters; see Lu 2:22."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/ezekiel-40.html

Dr. Gill commenting on Daniel 9:24:
Or, "concerning thy people, and concerning thy holy city" {s}; that is, such a space of time is fixed upon; "cut out" {t}, as the word signifies; or appointed of God for the accomplishment of certain events, relative to the temporal good of the city and people of the Jews; as the rebuilding of their city and temple; the continuance of them as a people, and of their city; the coming of the Messiah to them, to obtain spiritual blessings for them, and for all the people of God; who also were Daniel's people and city in a spiritual sense, to which he belonged; and likewise what was relative to the utter ruin and destruction of the Jews as a people, and of their city: and this space of "seventy" weeks is not to be understood of weeks of days; which is too short a time for the fulfilment of so many events as are mentioned; nor were they fulfilled within such a space of time; but of weeks of years, and make up four hundred and ninety years; within which time, beginning from a date after mentioned, all the things prophesied of were accomplished; and this way of reckoning of years by days is not unusual in the sacred writings; see Ge 29:27.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/daniel-9.html

John Gill, being a historical pre-mil as can be seen by the two references above, is nothing like a dispensationalist, but he does teach pre-mil in his text on theology -

Of the Millennium, or Personal Reign of Christ with the Saints on the New Earth a Thousand Years
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace2/bk7-ch8.html

Gill describes what he calls the "Spiritual Reign of Christ", which is how I understand the millennium, figurative language of 1000 years representing the time between the 1st and 2nd advent -
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace2/bk5-ch14.html

"3d. There will be abundance of peace in this reign, even of outward peace; no more wars, nor rumours of wars; swords and spears will be beaten into plowshares and pruning hooks; and war shall be learnt no more: no more persecution, nor persecutors: there will be none to hurt and destroy in all God's holy mountain: and such as were like wolves, and leopards, and bears, shall be as tame as lambs, kids, and calves; and shall feed and lie down together: there shall be an abundance of peace of every kind, and of it no end; and particularly internal and spiritual peace; for as grace will be high in exercise, joy and peace will increase and abound; see #Ps 72:7,8 Isa 9:7 11:6-9.

3e. There will be a great degree of holiness in all saints, of every class and rank; all the Lord's people will be righteous; "Every pot in Jerusalem, and in Judea"; that is, every member of the church, "shall be holiness unto the Lord"; in his sight, and to his glory; yea, "holiness to the Lord shall be upon the bells of the horses"; signifying how common it should be, and appear in every civil action of life, as well as in religious ones; and that holiness shall then be as common as unholiness is now; and that it shall be visible in the lives and conversations of saints; and be seen of all; see #Isa 9:21 Zec 14:20,21."
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#25
I actually cannot figure out what you think. I've found your writings rather confusing. As to the early church beliefs, I still must stick to the Scriptures. Pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib mean nothing to me because I find Matt. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are describing the tribulation leading up to 70 AD. The arguments over the tribulation I find baseless as I also reject the idea of a "rapture". I find the word "rapture" three times in the REB and once in the Weymouth, but having nothing at all to do with the second coming.
This is where 'rapture' comes from, being derived from the Latin term for what is rendered 'caught up' in this passage:

I Thessalonians 4
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Do you deny that the saints present at Christ's return will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air?

Just curious, do you also deny the bodily resurrection?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#26
Spending the first 30 years of my life in dispensationalism I can tell you that what I quoted in the clear statements is denied by dispensationalists. Dispensationalists are waiting for Jesus to be king on the throne and reigning in some future 1000 year kingdom in Israel and deny that Christ is king and reigns now.
I'm not pre-trib. I suppose I see things the way some dispensationalists do, but I don't agree with basing doctrine on an arbitrary division of historical periods that men came up with, so maybe that makes me not a dispensationalist.

That being said, can you show me one quote from a dispensationalists that says that Jesus is not reigning and ruling right now at the right hand of the Father. Why would Jesus' reigning and ruling at the right of the Father now mean there is no future 1000 year kingdom?

Look at this conversation in Acts 2,
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

I have read commentary and even once heard it from the pulpit (which I discussed with the speaker later) the idea that this shows that the apostles had no clue. Some commentators think they know eschatology better than the apostles after Jesus had already opened up their minds to understand the scriptures after His resurrection as we read in Luke.

Jesus did not rebuke the disciplines for slowness of heart for thinking that He would restore the kingdom to Israel. Rather, He encourages them in their opinion by telling them it was not for them to know the times or seasons which the Father had put in His own power. This implies that there is a time or season for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.

Dispensationalists only embrace that few will be saved when the other passage expands that to include Gentiles which means many more. Dispensationalists, and the Amils I've encountered, do not believe the gospel will transform life on earth to a golden age but are pessimists.
There will be a golden age after Christ returns. Right now, we are in a battle zone fighting principalities and powers. The Messiah has received the nations for his inheritance, and we are fighting, the word of God as our weapon, in this battle, as Christ subdues his enemies. The war ends when death is destroyed. That hasn't happened yet.

The prophecy in Isaiah 9:6, 7 reads "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end" and that was flat out denied to happen by dispensationalists, at least those I've listened to and read after.
So are you saying there is no ebb and flow of the battle here? What do you do with 'real life' problems. Maybe 80 ago or so, the US and Europe had better sexual morals. Divorce was rare. There was some fornication and prostitution, but fornication wasn't so wide spread. Even people who weren't that religious might have some fear of God about sexual immorality. Abortions were not wide spread.

These social issues are big moral concerns for a lot of Christians. I don't know about post-mil. I know some of the Puritan/Separatist churches ended up going ultra left wing, and historically some of them were post mil, so I don't know if post-mil tends to align with ultra left wing on social issues. So you can choose other social issues. Five hundred years ago or so there was little slavery in European countries that professed the slave trade, then this big explosion of the slave trade.

Another big issue is communism. Look at Russia and Germany in the 1700's, for example, and how many people professed Christianity. But then the Communists took over and atheism was rampant. I recently saw a map of percentage of people who have no religion in Germany and the eastern half was dark gray or nearly black indicating a high percentage of atheists.

Isn't this a kind of reversal socially, religious, etc. Does Christ's government increasing mean that there will not be times of increase of wickedness upon the earth in your opinion? How do you handle these 'real life' problems with your interpretation?

Dispensationalism, and to some extent as I understand amils, is very pessimistic and does not attribute power to the gospel to change society and the world. I do not think that at the last day, there will be more in hell than in heaven! Satan is not more powerful than God!
You jump to this crazy, blasphemous sounding conclusion. If people get more evil, that does not mean that Satan is more powerful than God. You should consider that you do not know his plan. If everything is not getting consistently more pleasant, godly, and nice, are you going to think Satan is defeating God? Would you have told that to Christians in Russia or East Germany when the Communists took over and they saw a generation being raised as atheists?

Christ asked when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on earth.

I'll give you an example of how dispensationalists deal with Scriptures that contradict their teaching. The MacArthur Study Bible using the NASB reads as follows:
John Macarthur is not the kind of person I encourage people to listen to because he is rather extreme with his cessationism and I don't agree with his eschatology, but I have seen some of his commentary and it is not all bad.

NASB95 Josh. 21:43-45 "So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass."

As typical with dispensationalists, they contradict the word of God, as MacArthur's note reads:

"But God's people failed to exercise their responsibility and possess their land to the full degree in various areas."

MacArthur ignores making a comment on the following 2 chapters later:

NASB95 Josh. 23:14 “Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed."
I think the issue here is you see contradictions where there are none, and do not make fine distinctions.

God's word did not fail, but Israel did not fully fulfill it's responsibility.

Look at these words in Judges 2.

2 Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

This is not a failure of God's word. It demonstrates a failure of Israel to obey it.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#27
I actually cannot figure out what you think. I've found your writings rather confusing. As to the early church beliefs, I still must stick to the Scriptures. Pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib mean nothing to me because I find Matt. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are describing the tribulation leading up to 70 AD. The arguments over the tribulation I find baseless as I also reject the idea of a "rapture". I find the word "rapture" three times in the REB and once in the Weymouth, but having nothing at all to do with the second coming.

Arthur Pink(you've quoted in other post) stated once that he felt as if he was "outside the camps". He was meaning that after looking at the main eschatological positions he realized that in all reality none of them were completely on target. I agree with him in that at first this is quite a lonely place to be and that after a while it becomes warm and cozy. I suppose the friction between the camps is that they either look at the events of AD70 and try to either prove that either everything happened back then or that the vast majority is in some distant future. That's convenience I suppose in that these things are in one camp's mind in the distant past and cannot have any effect on them. In reverse if another camp places these things far ahead into the future it feels more comfortable. It's easy that way to either think it's past tense or future tense because that way it either happened to someone else or is going to happen to someone else and not us in the present day.

Then it cascades into another great debate over what actually happened to Israel in ad70 and if the wound they received was permanent or not. One see's no Scriptures where another Israel will come and the other see's an Israel and is determined to establish it. It's a frightful thing to behold because Israel is the apple of Gods eye and so woe to those who curse it. Again if there's anywhere in Scripture where it's written that the beast would blaspheme God's name https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/13-6.htm then it is important to remember that Israel is called after Gods name. https://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/7-14.htm and so then who is this that men have decided to set back up and call after Gods Holy name?
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#28
Except that you have simply taken various Scriptures and cobbled together your faulty understanding of the Second Coming of Christ.

So let's be clear about Post-Millennialism first. According to Theopedia:
.The postmillennialist believes that the millennium is an era (not necessarily a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from a literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium.",

Now Revelation 19 and 20 sequentially and thoroughly refute this nonsense. So where is your "natural understanding" of Scripture? We are required to take Scripture in its plain literal and chronological sense (unless a metaphor is involved).
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" (Rev 1:1, KJV)

The word "signified" is "G4591 σημαίνω semaino (see-mai'-nō) v." and Strong's says it means "to indicate". John uses this very word 3 times in his gospel -

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." (John 12:32-33, KJV)

"Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die." (John 18:31-32, KJV)

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me." (John 21:18-19, KJV)

When I read how John used the word "signify" the 3 times in his gospel, it seems to mean to symobolize and not be a literal communication. The Rotherham Emphasized Bible seems to catch this in its translation -

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,––and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John;" (Rev 1:1, EBR)

It appears that the visions and symbolism begin after the letters to the seven churches of Asia, with the scene in heaven, 4:1. I find it important to distinguish what is symbolic and what is literal. Looking at 20:4 -

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Rev 20:4, KJV)

It does not read "bodies" but "souls of them" and the them are those "beheaded for the witness of Jesus", which does not include all Christians. On the judgment here I agree with David Clark -

"Some have thought that they were made associate judges with Christ to rule and pass judgment on the world and men.
This view cannot be accepted. Judgment transcends the functions of finite creatures; even glorified saints. Judgment is the prerogative of Deity only. "God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." If Christ were not God, even he could not judge.
But the meaning of this "judgment" requires us to go back to chapter 6:9-11. There we heard the prayers of these martyrs and saints: "How long, Lord dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#29
first of all, from 63 AD to 70 AD Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the end come. was never fulfilled.

secondly, 1 million Jews dead and Jerusalem sacked doesn't compare to the Destruction of Noah's Flood, nor Hitler's 6 Million Jews starved and baked in ovens.

thirdly, Daniel speaks of a Sacrifice offered that is unholy. that won't take place until the antichrist presents himself as God and then offers the sacrifice.


Grant it, much of the first 12 Verses have to do 70 AD like Temple Destruction, Judeans hiding in the mountains, but Matthew 24:
4 And Jesus answered and said to them: See that no one deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying: I am the Christ, and shall deceive many.

6 But you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you be not troubled; for they must be, but not yet is the end.

7 For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in various places.
^
have yet to be fulfilled.


then there's denying Roman Archive of Domitian placing John into Patmos, and Domitian [son of Vespasian who led the 70 AD Destruction and brother of Titus who led the Roman military and then became Emperor after Vespasian died] never reigned until 81 AD, some 11 years after 70 AD.

plus there must be a denial of the Church Fathers placing John as Bishop over the Church at Ephesus and John's own Disciples [Polycarp, Mathese, Ignatius, Papias] being placed over the other 6 Churches [7 total listed in Revelation Chapters 2-3]. these 7 Churches were the Churches started by Paul in Asia Minor.


that's a lot of denial happening. one must remember, DENIAL, [is not] a River that runs through Egypt!
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#30
I'm not pre-trib. I suppose I see things the way some dispensationalists do, but I don't agree with basing doctrine on an arbitrary division of historical periods that men came up with, so maybe that makes me not a dispensationalist.

That being said, can you show me one quote from a dispensationalists that says that Jesus is not reigning and ruling right now at the right hand of the Father. Why would Jesus' reigning and ruling at the right of the Father now mean there is no future 1000 year kingdom?

Look at this conversation in Acts 2,
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

I have read commentary and even once heard it from the pulpit (which I discussed with the speaker later) the idea that this shows that the apostles had no clue. Some commentators think they know eschatology better than the apostles after Jesus had already opened up their minds to understand the scriptures after His resurrection as we read in Luke.

Jesus did not rebuke the disciplines for slowness of heart for thinking that He would restore the kingdom to Israel. Rather, He encourages them in their opinion by telling them it was not for them to know the times or seasons which the Father had put in His own power. This implies that there is a time or season for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.



There will be a golden age after Christ returns. Right now, we are in a battle zone fighting principalities and powers. The Messiah has received the nations for his inheritance, and we are fighting, the word of God as our weapon, in this battle, as Christ subdues his enemies. The war ends when death is destroyed. That hasn't happened yet.



So are you saying there is no ebb and flow of the battle here? What do you do with 'real life' problems. Maybe 80 ago or so, the US and Europe had better sexual morals. Divorce was rare. There was some fornication and prostitution, but fornication wasn't so wide spread. Even people who weren't that religious might have some fear of God about sexual immorality. Abortions were not wide spread.

These social issues are big moral concerns for a lot of Christians. I don't know about post-mil. I know some of the Puritan/Separatist churches ended up going ultra left wing, and historically some of them were post mil, so I don't know if post-mil tends to align with ultra left wing on social issues. So you can choose other social issues. Five hundred years ago or so there was little slavery in European countries that professed the slave trade, then this big explosion of the slave trade.

Another big issue is communism. Look at Russia and Germany in the 1700's, for example, and how many people professed Christianity. But then the Communists took over and atheism was rampant. I recently saw a map of percentage of people who have no religion in Germany and the eastern half was dark gray or nearly black indicating a high percentage of atheists.

Isn't this a kind of reversal socially, religious, etc. Does Christ's government increasing mean that there will not be times of increase of wickedness upon the earth in your opinion? How do you handle these 'real life' problems with your interpretation?



You jump to this crazy, blasphemous sounding conclusion. If people get more evil, that does not mean that Satan is more powerful than God. You should consider that you do not know his plan. If everything is not getting consistently more pleasant, godly, and nice, are you going to think Satan is defeating God? Would you have told that to Christians in Russia or East Germany when the Communists took over and they saw a generation being raised as atheists?

Christ asked when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on earth.



John Macarthur is not the kind of person I encourage people to listen to because he is rather extreme with his cessationism and I don't agree with his eschatology, but I have seen some of his commentary and it is not all bad.



I think the issue here is you see contradictions where there are none, and do not make fine distinctions.

God's word did not fail, but Israel did not fully fulfill it's responsibility.

Look at these words in Judges 2.

2 Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

This is not a failure of God's word. It demonstrates a failure of Israel to obey it.
"Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." (Matt 2:2, KJV)

Scofield - "The King" is one of the divine titles Psalms 10:16 and so used in the worship of the Church 1 Timothy 1:17 but Christ is never called "King of the Church." He is "King of the Jews" Matthew 2:2 and Lord and "Head of the Church" Eph 1:22; Eph 1:23 (See Scofield "Matthew 16:18") See Scofield "Hebrews 12:23" ; Matthew 16:18; Hebrews 12:23

The dispensationalism I was taught, as in Scofield was that Christ is not king until he is king of the Jews in the millennium. I asked a Dispensationalist Pastor how he could project Jesus on the throne into a future millennium when Peter said in Acts 2:30ff he ascended to the throne in the 1st century. I was informed that was not the throne of David, so that did not apply. Now that is literalism gone berserk!

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:6-7, KJV)

You are reading into that text from your own mind. Jesus in v7 did not refer to restoring the kingdom to Israel, you are reading that into it.

Of course there is an ebb and flow to history, 2 steps forward, 1 step back. I too see our state now pretty wicked and society is corrupt to the core. But, do we have brother killing brother as in the War Between the States? Do we have Catholics and Protestants burning each other at the stake for heresy? Is the church today worse than it was just before Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door? How about living in Rome prior to Constantine? Then as to other sort of things, heart transplants, boarding a plane in New York and being on the other side of the world in Hong Kong in less than 24 hours? Then, I don't know if history goes on another 100 years, 1000 years... so I can't judge how advanced the kingdom of God goes by the power of the gospel.

"I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8, KJV)

Does the answer have to be "no"? RWP "It is not clear whether this sentence is also a question or a positive statement. There is no way to decide."

It is true that sometimes an act of God is stated as done because it is certain and that is explained:

"I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." (Exod 23:27-30, KJV)

But that time cannot mean it awaited 2500+ years to be accomplished, which is what dispensationalism teaches. Dispensationalists claim the Jews have never possessed all the land promised to her. That is flatly contradicted by Scripture, such as Neh. 9:23ff
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#31
first of all, from 63 AD to 70 AD Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the end come. was never fulfilled.

secondly, 1 million Jews dead and Jerusalem sacked doesn't compare to the Destruction of Noah's Flood, nor Hitler's 6 Million Jews starved and baked in ovens.

thirdly, Daniel speaks of a Sacrifice offered that is unholy. that won't take place until the antichrist presents himself as God and then offers the sacrifice.


Grant it, much of the first 12 Verses have to do 70 AD like Temple Destruction, Judeans hiding in the mountains, but Matthew 24:
4 And Jesus answered and said to them: See that no one deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying: I am the Christ, and shall deceive many.

6 But you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you be not troubled; for they must be, but not yet is the end.

7 For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in various places.
^
have yet to be fulfilled.


then there's denying Roman Archive of Domitian placing John into Patmos, and Domitian [son of Vespasian who led the 70 AD Destruction and brother of Titus who led the Roman military and then became Emperor after Vespasian died] never reigned until 81 AD, some 11 years after 70 AD.

plus there must be a denial of the Church Fathers placing John as Bishop over the Church at Ephesus and John's own Disciples [Polycarp, Mathese, Ignatius, Papias] being placed over the other 6 Churches [7 total listed in Revelation Chapters 2-3]. these 7 Churches were the Churches started by Paul in Asia Minor.


that's a lot of denial happening. one must remember, DENIAL, [is not] a River that runs through Egypt!
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matt 24:14, KJV)

That was certainly fulfilled when the Apostle Paul was living:

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Rom 1:8, KJV)

"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" (Col 1:23, KJV)

You need to read Josephus and you'll see that those signs did occur leading up to 70 AD and a web site has it placed clearly in chronological order:

http://www.josephus.org/warChronologyIntro.htm

Also,on the following link, scroll down to "Omens of Destruction" -

http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#omens
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#32
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matt 24:14, KJV)

That was certainly fulfilled when the Apostle Paul was living:

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Rom 1:8, KJV)

"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" (Col 1:23, KJV)

You need to read Josephus and you'll see that those signs did occur leading up to 70 AD and a web site has it placed clearly in chronological order:

http://www.josephus.org/warChronologyIntro.htm

Also,on the following link, scroll down to "Omens of Destruction" -

http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#omens
it wasn't preached to China and all of Asia.

so how can you claim it was?

Christianity came to China in A.D. 635, when a Nestorian monk named Aluoben entered the ancient capital of Chang'an -- now modern-day Xi'an -- in central China.

this does not includes the Natives on the Lands of what are now called the America's North/Central/South!
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#33
This is where 'rapture' comes from, being derived from the Latin term for what is rendered 'caught up' in this passage:

I Thessalonians 4
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Do you deny that the saints present at Christ's return will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air?

Just curious, do you also deny the bodily resurrection?
I'm aware from the etymology that "rapture" comes from the Latin. Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translates the Latin into English and it does not use "rapture" in the text you give:

"For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept. For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord." (1Thess 4:15-17, DRC)

There is nothing whatsoever in that text that supports the silly notion as in the movie 'Left Behind". Those saints in the graves rise first and then those of us alive will join them in the clouds to meet Christ. There is nothing in that passage about Christians being raptured out from among the lost who are resurrected later.

I certainly do believe in the bodily resurrection and general judgment on "the last day". I am not hyper-preterist or full-preterist.

It is his will that I should not lose even one of those he has given me, but should raise them all up on the last day. (John 6:39, REB)

and also judgment

"There is a judge for anyone who rejects me and does not accept my words; the word I have spoken will be his judge on the last day." (John 12:48, REB)
 

Ethan1942

Active member
Jul 23, 2022
205
88
28
82
#34
it wasn't preached to China and all of Asia.

so how can you claim it was?

Christianity came to China in A.D. 635, when a Nestorian monk named Aluoben entered the ancient capital of Chang'an -- now modern-day Xi'an -- in central China.

this does not includes the Natives on the Lands of what are now called the America's North/Central/South!
So, the Apostle Paul was in error in Rom. 1:8 and Col. 1:23? For myself, I will believe the Bible.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#35
So, the Apostle Paul was in error in Rom. 1:8 and Col. 1:23? For myself, I will believe the Bible.
i think you need to reread Verse 8:
8 First, I thank my God through Messiah Yeshua for all of you, because your faithfulness is made known throughout the whole world.

it's talking about the people of Rome, THEIR FAITHFULNESS is being known, not the Gospel has been preached!


Colossians:
23 if indeed you continue in faith founded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature that is under heaven, of which I Paul became a minister.

every fish, bird, insect, human, mammal, amphibian, reptile?

clearly this is like Paul saying Speaking in Tongues is like sounding like Angels in 1 Corinthians when Speaking in Tongues comes from the Holy Spirit/not Angels and is mysteries and human languages. HYPERBOLE at its finest.

clearly, the Gospel was not preached to every Nation like Jesus Commanded in Matthew 28.
 

Dirtman

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#36
it wasn't preached to China and all of Asia.

so how can you claim it was?

Christianity came to China in A.D. 635, when a Nestorian monk named Aluoben entered the ancient capital of Chang'an -- now modern-day Xi'an -- in central China.

this does not includes the Natives on the Lands of what are now called the America's North/Central/South!
He is comparing what Jesus said to what Paul wrote in Romans. Because the English word "world" but ya cant really compare "ethnos" (the word in Mathew) which means all the different people of the world; to the word "kosmos" (from Romans) which means the land in either a wide sense or a narrow sense including the people there of said land.

So in proper context Jesus was saying that He must be preached to all the people groups of the world, while Paul writing to the Romans was say their faith is spoken of through out the land.
But you know there are also English context clues if a person bother to apply normal reading comprehension.

I want to say something mean and snarky about this whole subject but am doing my best to refrain.
 

Dirtman

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#37
So, the Apostle Paul was in error in Rom. 1:8 and Col. 1:23? For myself, I will believe the Bible.
No Paul didn't speak English and he uses a different than Jesus did. The two different words are both translated to English is some translations as world.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#38
"Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." (Matt 2:2, KJV)

Scofield - "The King" is one of the divine titles Psalms 10:16 and so used in the worship of the Church 1 Timothy 1:17 but Christ is never called "King of the Church." He is "King of the Jews" Matthew 2:2 and Lord and "Head of the Church" Eph 1:22; Eph 1:23 (See Scofield "Matthew 16:18") See Scofield "Hebrews 12:23" ; Matthew 16:18; Hebrews 12:23
This quote doesn't prove your point. I have never studied out of the Scofield. One Pentecostal church I went to went into detail in some of the dispensational pre-trib type teachings. There was a Sunday school class and a guest speaker with a chart and all that stuff. I think Pentecostals aren't hard core on all the Scofield stuff. So maybe you have a quote.

Assuming 'King' isn't used elsewhere for Christ's role in this current age, the footnote has a point. What you quoted doesn't say that Christ is not King of the nations, but rather points out in what contexts 'King' and other titles is used. So what is your beef with it? Is there more to the quote? It is also fair to point out that in Psalm 110:1, which is quoted in the New Testament, Yahweh speaks to David's 'Lord', lAdoni. It doesn't use the title King. Peter, in Acts 2, says that God had made Jesus Lord and Christ. And we see 'Lord'--in line with the wording of the Old Testament, used throughout the New Testament.

The dispensationalism I was taught, as in Scofield was that Christ is not king until he is king of the Jews in the millennium.
I never heard that, but there are multitudes of teachers and pastors out there. I don't have a problem with saying that the Bible uses 'Lord' to refer to Christ, but I would not say that He is not now King. I don't see how this one comment you heard proves this concept is part of the Dispensationalists' system either.

I asked a Dispensationalist Pastor how he could project Jesus on the throne into a future millennium when Peter said in Acts 2:30ff he ascended to the throne in the 1st century.
Why do you see that as some kind of contradiction?

I was informed that was not the throne of David, so that did not apply. Now that is literalism gone berserk!
Huh? Do you think David reigned in heaven?

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:6-7, KJV)

You are reading into that text from your own mind. Jesus in v7 did not refer to restoring the kingdom to Israel, you are reading that into it.
Do me a favor and read the words of the verse really slowly a few times, and then comment on it. How do you interpret the passage? And why would you think Jesus was not answering their question in verse 6? They asked whether it was the TIME for him to restore the kingdom. He said it was not for them to know the times or seasons? If they were wrong, why didn't Jesus correct them? And doesn't it bother you, if they were wrong, that you have a different eschatological system from that of the apostles whom Jesus sent?

Of course there is an ebb and flow to history, 2 steps forward, 1 step back. I too see our state now pretty wicked and society is corrupt to the core.
So if society gets even more wicked, a man of sin arises, Christians are slaughtered, etc., and then Jesus comes back, how would that be contrary to the 'increase of His government' verse? If our state is now pretty wicked is not a contradiction, and this isn't contrary to the increase of His government, why would a man of sin scenario followed by the Second Coming be contrary to that verse?

Then as to other sort of things, heart transplants, boarding a plane in New York and being on the other side of the world in Hong Kong in less than 24 hours?
Do you think Jesus' kingdom is related technological advancements?

But that time cannot mean it awaited 2500+ years to be accomplished, which is what dispensationalism teaches. Dispensationalists claim the Jews have never possessed all the land promised to her. That is flatly contradicted by Scripture, such as Neh. 9:23ff
How does that verse prove your point? Does it say every bit of the land promised to Abraham was occupied by Israel? I don't see that there.

23 You made their children as numerous as the stars in the sky, and you brought them into the land that you told their parents to enter and possess.
(NIV)
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#39
I'm aware from the etymology that "rapture" comes from the Latin. Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translates the Latin into English and it does not use "rapture" in the text you give:
So what? Take a look at the Vulgate? I've also seen 'rapture' used of the catching away in an English Bible Commentary from the 1700s before John Darby was alive.

"For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept. For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord." (1Thess 4:15-17, DRC)

There is nothing whatsoever in that text that supports the silly notion as in the movie 'Left Behind". Those saints in the graves rise first and then those of us alive will join them in the clouds to meet Christ.
So it sounds like you do believe in the rapture. As a former dispensationalists, weren't taught that the rapture refers to 'harpazo' in this passage? The pre-tribbers even say 'pre-tribulational rapture.' There whole end times scenario is not 'the rapture.' The 'rapture' refers to the catching up of them that believe at Christ's coming. The term existed before Darby's pre-trib theory.

There is nothing in that passage about Christians being raptured out from among the lost who are resurrected later.
The other dead aren't mentioned. Two resurrections are mentioned in the book of Revelation.

I certainly do believe in the bodily resurrection and general judgment on "the last day". I am not hyper-preterist or full-preterist.
That's good.

It is his will that I should not lose even one of those he has given me, but should raise them all up on the last day. (John 6:39, REB)

and also judgment

"There is a judge for anyone who rejects me and does not accept my words; the word I have spoken will be his judge on the last day." (John 12:48, REB)
'Day' can refer to 24 hours or a period of time, depending on the context. Revelation parses it out into two resurrections. But as far as believers go, Paul says they will be caught up/raptured, to met the Lord in the air.


And if you say you don't believe in the rapture to pre-trib folks, that really does sound kind of heretical. You are saying you do not believe the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#40
I find the simple, most natural understanding of Scripture the best. I embrace the words of Matthew Poole on 2 Cor. 11:3 - Paul, "was afraid, lest that as the serpent by his subtlety deceived Eve, so some subtle seducers should corrupt them, and so withdraw them from the simplicity of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him." On prophecy, I try not to think or be inventive beyond that which is written, 1 Cor. 4:6.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9-10, KJV)

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." (Isa 9:6-7, KJV)

Speaking to the Jews, Jesus said:
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matt 7:14, KJV)

Speaking of the Gentiles, Jesus said:
"And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt 8:11-12, KJV)

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15, KJV)

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matt 12:28, KJV)

"And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it." (Mark 4:30-32, KJV)

"Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." (Matt 13:33, KJV)

"For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." (Acts 2:34-35, KJV)

I find the 1000 years of Revelation 20 to be the period from Acts 2:34-35 until 1 Cor 16:24-27, the time between the 1st and 2nd advents. It is to be understood in the same way as the 1000 in Psa. 50:10; 91:7; 105:8; Isa 30:17; 60:22. The symbolism of Revelation is taken mainly from the OT.

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." (1Cor 15:24-27, KJV)

I understand historic pre-mil and amil views and do not find a reason to go to battle against those brethren about that, but I do shun the convoluted imaginations of man-made prophecy schemes that have failed over and over through the past centuries.
I don’t think full or partial preterism is accurate. Personally I’m historic premil. Among many other reasons, probably one of the best reasons is that the wedding supper of the Lamb should include the entire church from the past, present, and future. If the wedding supper of the Lamb has already happened then there’s a massive problem. It basically means the “bride of Christ” has already come and gone. Leaving the question: who are we?

That’s why I think post-mil camp is way off on the school of thought concerning eschatology.

Revelation 19:9
9Then the angel told me to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”

the implication of not being invited to this wedding supper is that there is no figurative marriage for you and me or anyone else now. That’s why I think this is a prophecy of a future event and certainly a historic premil perspective is accurate as far as I can tell.