A Few of the Scriptures that Make me Post-Millennial

Ethan1942 · Aug 12, 2022

Ethan1942 said:

After reviewing the responses to my post-mil post, I see I'll have to connect the dots and expose the oft-repeated canard of the dispensationalists that they are consistent literalists.

The prophecies in the book of Revelation in 1:1,3 & 22:6,10 clearly state that the prophecies "must shortly come to pass"KJV, "must soon take place"RSV/NRSV and "the time is at hand"KJV, "the time is near"RSV/NRSV. Literal and plain language, and in the introduction to Revelation, 2006 Harper Collins Study Bible reads: "MANY EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS thought that Revelation had been written toward the end of Domitain's reign (81-96 CE), but a few later writers thought that John had written a generation earlier, during the persecution that occurred in64 under Nero (54-68 CE)... In favor of the earlier dates can be found in the book. In favor of the earlier date, 11:1-3 suggests that the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (destroyed by the Romans in 70) was still standing when the book was written. Further, the code name of the beast in 13:18 is 666, widely thought to symbolize the name of Nero Caesar." The reasoning to date Revelation later is the same reasoning liberals use to date Daniel hundreds of years later, they did not believe in prophecy.

"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:10, KJV)
That is future from the date of composition of Revelation. Christians reign now, Rom. 5:17; Eph 2:6

Though John Gill is pre-mil, he describes this reigning "meaning not merely in a spiritual sense, through grace reigning over sin and corruption, through Satan being bruised under their feet, and through the victory they have in Christ over the world, but in the millennium state, in the thousand years' reign with Christ..." Albert Barnes writes: "The idea clearly is, in accordance with what is so frequently said in the Scriptures, that the dominion on the earth will be given to the saints; that is, that there will be such a prevalence of true religion, and the redeemed will be so much in the ascendency, that the affairs of the nations will be in their hands. Righteous people will hold the offices; will fill places of trust and responsibility; will have a controlling voice in all that pertains to human affairs."

"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 9:7, KJV)

The increase said to be without end indicates growth, not an instant appearing of the full fledged kingdom. But, what does Scofield state on this verse:

(The "throne of David" is a phrase as definite, historic, historically, as "throne of the Caesars," and as little admits of "spiritualizing.")

So, according to Scofield, and the dispensationalists, "upon the throne of David" MUST be literal. But when you read the words of the Apostle Peter, he makes the prophecy of Christ on David's throne as meaning the resurrection ascending to the throne in heaven!

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption...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 2:30-31, 34-35, KJV)

Peter states that Christ ascended the throne of David in the 1st century, and he is to reign on the throne "Until I make they foes thy footstool." When does this reign of Christ end? Paul tells us in his chapter discussing the resurrection:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 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." (1Cor 15:22-25, KJV)

Paul speaks of the resurrection of the saints at his coming and then He delivers up the kingdom to God... WHEN? "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

If the reign of Christ on David's throne began when he ascended in the 1st century, and ends in the future at the resurrection, when he has made his foes his footstool, then we are in the millennium. Jesus Christ returns, post-mil, after the millennium. I've made nothing figurative or symobolic, all is literal, even quoting exactly what Peter stated about Christ on David's throne. Peter, under inspiration made the prophecy of Christ to sit on David's throne figurative, I did not.

Time permitting, tomorrow I'll continue expanding on more of the texts in my OP

Beckie · Aug 12, 2022

Ethan1942 said:

After reviewing the responses to my post-mil post, I see I'll have to connect the dots and expose the oft-repeated canard of the dispensationalists that they are consistent literalists.

The prophecies in the book of Revelation in 1:1,3 & 22:6,10 clearly state that the prophecies "must shortly come to pass"KJV, "must soon take place"RSV/NRSV and "the time is at hand"KJV, "the time is near"RSV/NRSV. Literal and plain language, and in the introduction to Revelation, 2006 Harper Collins Study Bible reads: "MANY EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS thought that Revelation had been written toward the end of Domitain's reign (81-96 CE), but a few later writers thought that John had written a generation earlier, during the persecution that occurred in64 under Nero (54-68 CE)... In favor of the earlier dates can be found in the book. In favor of the earlier date, 11:1-3 suggests that the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (destroyed by the Romans in 70) was still standing when the book was written. Further, the code name of the beast in 13:18 is 666, widely thought to symbolize the name of Nero Caesar." The reasoning to date Revelation later is the same reasoning liberals use to date Daniel hundreds of years later, they did not believe in prophecy.

"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:10, KJV)
That is future from the date of composition of Revelation. Christians reign now, Rom. 5:17; Eph 2:6

Though John Gill is pre-mil, he describes this reigning "meaning not merely in a spiritual sense, through grace reigning over sin and corruption, through Satan being bruised under their feet, and through the victory they have in Christ over the world, but in the millennium state, in the thousand years' reign with Christ..." Albert Barnes writes: "The idea clearly is, in accordance with what is so frequently said in the Scriptures, that the dominion on the earth will be given to the saints; that is, that there will be such a prevalence of true religion, and the redeemed will be so much in the ascendency, that the affairs of the nations will be in their hands. Righteous people will hold the offices; will fill places of trust and responsibility; will have a controlling voice in all that pertains to human affairs."

"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 9:7, KJV)

The increase said to be without end indicates growth, not an instant appearing of the full fledged kingdom. But, what does Scofield state on this verse:

(The "throne of David" is a phrase as definite, historic, historically, as "throne of the Caesars," and as little admits of "spiritualizing.")

So, according to Scofield, and the dispensationalists, "upon the throne of David" MUST be literal. But when you read the words of the Apostle Peter, he makes the prophecy of Christ on David's throne as meaning the resurrection ascending to the throne in heaven!

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption...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 2:30-31, 34-35, KJV)

Peter states that Christ ascended the throne of David in the 1st century, and he is to reign on the throne "Until I make they foes thy footstool." When does this reign of Christ end? Paul tells us in his chapter discussing the resurrection:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 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." (1Cor 15:22-25, KJV)

Paul speaks of the resurrection of the saints at his coming and then He delivers up the kingdom to God... WHEN? "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

If the reign of Christ on David's throne began when he ascended in the 1st century, and ends in the future at the resurrection, when he has made his foes his footstool, then we are in the millennium. Jesus Christ returns, post-mil, after the millennium. I've made nothing figurative or symobolic, all is literal, even quoting exactly what Peter stated about Christ on David's throne. Peter, under inspiration made the prophecy of Christ to sit on David's throne figurative, I did not.

Time permitting, tomorrow I'll continue expanding on more of the texts in my OP

Never mind what the Scriptures say Scofield says : Page 996 of the 1967 edition

"At hand" is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing said to be "at hand" will immediately appear, but only that no known or predicted event must intervene. When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross, and the out-calling of the Church. But this was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God.

Ethan1942 · Aug 12, 2022

presidente said:

"Q: What is the rapture?

A: There are many Christians who believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ will be in two phases. First, He will come for believers, both living and dead, in the “rapture” (read 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). In this view, the rapture—which is the transformation and catching up of all Christians, dead or alive, to meet Christ in the air—will be secret, for it will be unknown to the world of unbelievers at the time of its happening.

The effect of this removal, in the absence of multitudes of people, will, of course, be evident on earth. Then, second, after a period of seven years of tribulation on earth, Christ will return to the earth with His church, the saints who were raptured (Matthew 24:30, 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 1 Peter 1:13, Revelation 1:7). He will be victorious over His enemies and will reign on the earth for 1,000 years (the millennium) with His saints, the church."
https://billygraham.org/answer/what-is-the-rapture/

I do not see anything in 1 Thess. 4 that says the coming of Christ for the saints is to be "secret" or "unknown"! I see nothing about some imaginary 7-year tribulation connected with this so-called secret rapture.

Matthew Henry's use of the word "rapture" is nothing like the Dispensationalist's rapture as described by the Billy Graham organization and what I was taught for many years. You do not find the dispensationalist idea of the rapture in earlier commentaries before Darby and Scofield.

presidente · Aug 12, 2022

Ethan1942 said:

No, 'rapture' in the Billy Graham quote describes when Jesus will come for both the living and the dead. read it carefully. The theory about the antiChrist, seven years of tribulation, etc. is not inherent in the word 'rapture.' Since pre-mils were using the term 'rapture' before Darby came along, I don't get why you would not want to use it. It's like letting someone you do not agree with own the term.

I really don't get why anyone would say they don't believe in the rapture. What that actually means is they don't believe they that are alive and remain will be caught up with the dead to meet the Lord in the air. If you are trying to communicate with dispensationalists, and you say you don't believe in the rapture, that is what you are saying, and that is generally how it will be perceived.

The rapture is an area of agreement among many different eschatologies-- that the dead will be raised and the remaining saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. I'm not sure about the hyperpreterists, though, but this is a common belief among those who hold to many eschatological systems.

If you don't believe in a 'secret rapture'... well okay. I don't think I've ever heard that term taught in church by a dispensationalist, though I know it is floating out there. But the rapture refers to the catching up of the saints. Secrecy is not inherent in the term. Neither is the idea that a 7 year tribulation follows.

presidente · Aug 12, 2022

Ethan1942 said:

Matthew Poole also used the rapture in reference to the events of I Thessalonians 4.

Clayman · Aug 13, 2022

Evmur said:

Yep sure for Peter seems to teach this as a metaphor.

Satan was the ruler of the world, the world was in darkness, and men were in the world. We are the goods in the world the Lord came and plundered from Satan's house.

I don't believe even the pharisees see Satan as the stronger man, Satan is the strong man Jesus is the stronger man.

Ethan1942 · Aug 13, 2022

Where do dispensationalists find the imaginary 7-year tribulation?
A more accurate depiction of the 70 weeks by chart: http://www.geocities.ws/gacbloomington/70wksdaniel.gif

The dispensationalists invent a 7-year tribulation in our future by separating, without any basis to do so, the 70th week of Daniel from the 69th week and then insert a space of 2000 years and project the 70th week into our future as the 7-year tribulation. Absurd! The passage is difficult but problems are not solved by inserting a ridiculous gap between the 69th and 70th week. Matthew Poole explains Daniel 9:27 with more common sense:

he is not Titus making truce with the Jews, which he did not, though he endeavoured to persuade them that he might spare them. I say then with Graser, Mede, and others, that this he is the Messiah, and the covenant he confirms is the new testament or covenant, called therefore the covenant of the people, Isa 42:6; 49:8; and the Angel of the covenant, Mal 3:1; and the Surety of the covenant, Heb 7:22; and the ancient rabbins called the Messias כרח a middle man, or middle man between two.

Quest. How did Christ confirm the covenant?
Answ. 1. By testimony,

(1.) Of angels, Luk 2:10; Mt 28;
(2.) John Baptist;
(3.) Of the wise men;
(4.) By the saints then living, Luk 1:2;
(5.) Moses and Elias, Mat 17:3;
(6.) Pharisees, as Nicodemus, Joh 3:2;
(7.) The devils that confessed him.

2. By his preaching.
3. By signs and wonders.
4. By his holy life.
5. By his resurrection and ascension.
6. By his death and blood shed.

Shall confirm the covenant; rybgh he shall corroborate it, as if it began before his coming to fail and be invalid.

With many; noting hereby the paucity of the Jewish church and nation, compared with the great increase and enlargement by believing Gentiles throughout all nations and ages of the world, Isa 11:9; 49:6; 53:11,12; 54:2,3; Mr 16:15; Act 13:46; q.d. With many Jews first and last, and with many more of the nations, yea, with the many whom the rabbins and Pharisees despise as the rabble, the common people, Isa 42:3; Mat 21:31; Joh 7:48,49; 1Co 1:26,27.

For one week; by a figure, take the greater part of the whole, he shall, though rejected by the chief and bulk of the Jewish nation, yet make the new testament prevail with many in that time, i.e. at the latter end of the seventy weeks.

The sacrifice and the oblation to cease; zebach and mincha, bloody and unbloody, to cease. i.e. all the Jewish rites, and Levitical ceremonious worship, i.e. by the burning of the temple before the city was taken, for they were only to offer sacrifice in the temple, nor had they wherewithal in the siege. Yet is there more in it than this, viz. that the Lord Jesus, by his death, and by the execution of his wrath, and abrogate and put an end to this laborious service, and made it to cease for ever.

For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; desolate

for the wing, for the manifold and great abominations stretching, and our text hath it well overspreading. This abomination was the Roman army with their eagles, and with their superstitious rites in approaching to besiege and subdue any place; and this is executed by Christ upon them, Mat 22:7, when he is called a King sending forth his armies, and destroying the murderers that destroyed him, and burning their city, and their coming is Christ’s coming, Mal 3:1,2; Joh 21:22; Jam 5:7; therefore it is said here,

he shall make it desolate. Even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate: here all this is made the effect of God’s decree, and therefore irrevocable. This word shomen notes that this people were bewitched, sottishly superstitious, wanderers, banished, the astonishment and scorn of the world; all which did justly and dreadfully befall them, and they verify it to this day.

They that will curiously search further into the seventy weeks and other numbers in Daniel, and have leisure and skill, let them read Graserus, L’Empereur, Wasmuth, Mede, Willet, Wichmannus, Sanctius, Rainoldus, Pererius, Derorlon, Broughton, Liveleius, Helvicns, Calovius, Geierus. &c. Read also Joseph Med. p. 861, &c., and Bail. p. 180, &c. This scripture shows the coming of the Messiah so clearly, his sufferings, and the wrath of God so severely upon the Jews for it, that it thoroughly confutes their unbelief; and fully confirms our faith in Jesus Christ.

Ethan1942 · Aug 13, 2022

presidente said:

You are taking completely out of context what the typical evangelical of today means when he speaks of the "rapture". The word "rapture" in the old commentaries merely refers to the taking up the saints at the last day, those dead and in the grave rise first and those alive meet them in the air to meet the Lord. That was the simple idea of rapture in the past.

The vast majority of evangelicals today believe, as exhibited by the description by the Billy Graham organization, that this rapture is secret, and the unsaved wonder what happened to all those people. Then they tie this idea of rapture to a pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib timing. You DO NOT find this in the commentaries before Dispensationalism. I heard that preached constantly, usually on the last couple days of a series of an rival and it was what was found in the dispensationalist literature.

John Gill was a historic premil, NOT a dispensationalist for he lived in the 18th century and he does indeed use the word "rapture" in the 1 Thess. 4:15-17 passage. He does project the resurrection of the lost to 1000 years after the "rapture" of the saints; BUT, you find nothing about the 7-year tribulation beginning. John Gill is emphatic that Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are about the destruction of the temple, not some imaginary 7-year tribulation in our future.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/1-thessalonians-4.html

In his commentary on Matthew he writes:

Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass,.... Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live

till all these things were fulfilled; see Mt 16:28 as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is, that John, one of the disciples of Christ, outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destroyed; as Rabban Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before, relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/matthew-24.html

presidente · Aug 13, 2022

Ethan1942 said:

You aren't making sense. The fact that Billy Graham said some believers believe the rapture is 'secret' means that the idea of 'secret' is not inherent in the word 'rapture', or else the word 'secret' would not need to be used.

'Rapture' refers to the catching up of the saints referred to in I Thessalonians 4. Pre-trib rapture folks will debate the pre-trib versus post-trib rapture. So 'rapture' does not refer specifically to post trib.

Post-mils historically used the word 'rapture' to refer to the catching up in I Thessalonians 4. That is how pre-tribbers use it. If you say you do not believe in the rapture, you are saying you do not believe in the saints being caught up to meet the Lord in the air. You can say you mean something different, but don't expect listeners to understand you, especially if you are talking to pre-tribbers.

It's kind of like calling Muslims 'evangelicals' because they share some of the same voting concerns in the US electorate.

See, 'rapture' used across exchatalogical lines.

Evmur · Aug 14, 2022

Ethan1942 said:

After reviewing the responses to my post-mil post, I see I'll have to connect the dots and expose the oft-repeated canard of the dispensationalists that they are consistent literalists.

The prophecies in the book of Revelation in 1:1,3 & 22:6,10 clearly state that the prophecies "must shortly come to pass"KJV, "must soon take place"RSV/NRSV and "the time is at hand"KJV, "the time is near"RSV/NRSV. Literal and plain language, and in the introduction to Revelation, 2006 Harper Collins Study Bible reads: "MANY EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS thought that Revelation had been written toward the end of Domitain's reign (81-96 CE), but a few later writers thought that John had written a generation earlier, during the persecution that occurred in64 under Nero (54-68 CE)... In favor of the earlier dates can be found in the book. In favor of the earlier date, 11:1-3 suggests that the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (destroyed by the Romans in 70) was still standing when the book was written. Further, the code name of the beast in 13:18 is 666, widely thought to symbolize the name of Nero Caesar." The reasoning to date Revelation later is the same reasoning liberals use to date Daniel hundreds of years later, they did not believe in prophecy.

"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:10, KJV)
That is future from the date of composition of Revelation. Christians reign now, Rom. 5:17; Eph 2:6

Though John Gill is pre-mil, he describes this reigning "meaning not merely in a spiritual sense, through grace reigning over sin and corruption, through Satan being bruised under their feet, and through the victory they have in Christ over the world, but in the millennium state, in the thousand years' reign with Christ..." Albert Barnes writes: "The idea clearly is, in accordance with what is so frequently said in the Scriptures, that the dominion on the earth will be given to the saints; that is, that there will be such a prevalence of true religion, and the redeemed will be so much in the ascendency, that the affairs of the nations will be in their hands. Righteous people will hold the offices; will fill places of trust and responsibility; will have a controlling voice in all that pertains to human affairs."

"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 9:7, KJV)

The increase said to be without end indicates growth, not an instant appearing of the full fledged kingdom. But, what does Scofield state on this verse:

(The "throne of David" is a phrase as definite, historic, historically, as "throne of the Caesars," and as little admits of "spiritualizing.")

So, according to Scofield, and the dispensationalists, "upon the throne of David" MUST be literal. But when you read the words of the Apostle Peter, he makes the prophecy of Christ on David's throne as meaning the resurrection ascending to the throne in heaven!

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption...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 2:30-31, 34-35, KJV)

Peter states that Christ ascended the throne of David in the 1st century, and he is to reign on the throne "Until I make they foes thy footstool." When does this reign of Christ end? Paul tells us in his chapter discussing the resurrection:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 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." (1Cor 15:22-25, KJV)

Paul speaks of the resurrection of the saints at his coming and then He delivers up the kingdom to God... WHEN? "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

If the reign of Christ on David's throne began when he ascended in the 1st century, and ends in the future at the resurrection, when he has made his foes his footstool, then we are in the millennium. Jesus Christ returns, post-mil, after the millennium. I've made nothing figurative or symobolic, all is literal, even quoting exactly what Peter stated about Christ on David's throne. Peter, under inspiration made the prophecy of Christ to sit on David's throne figurative, I did not.

Time permitting, tomorrow I'll continue expanding on more of the texts in my OP

No wonder you folk don't like the Rapture, it runs a coach and horses through your theology. Jesus said, Paul said Peter and Jude say that the latter day will be perilous. They paint a very different end time view to yours. The world will be in rebellion.

Evmur · Aug 14, 2022

Clayman said:

They accused Him of casting out demons and healing the sick by the prince of demons.

The devil hasn't the power or the inclination to heal, in order for baalzebub to give Jesus power to heal he would need to first break into the strong man's house, bind Him and spoil His goods ... the strong man is God.

... that is why the Lord rebuked it so sharply.

Clayman · Aug 14, 2022

Evmur said:

Agreed they are saying Jesus is in league with Satan and working with him.

Jesus gives two reasons why He isn't in league and working with Satan, the first is
that if He was then they are working against themselves and therefore are divided and can not stand. And if Jesus is casting them out by the finger of God surely then the kingdom of God has come

The second is that when a strong man is armed and in his house his goods are in peace unless one who is stronger comes and overpowers him, Jesus casting out demons proves that He is stronger and therefore His kingdom will stand and Satan's won't therefore not only are they not in cahoots with one another but Jesus shows He is stronger than Satan by binding him and plundering his house.

Also I believe for some strange reason premils have trouble with these verses the same way post mils and amils have trouble with rev 20 and the literal 1000 yrs.

And those on both sides can claerly see the mistreatment of these particular verses by the other and are blind to their own discrepancies, IMHO.

Dirtman · Aug 14, 2022

From what I have been reading, post millennialists do not believe that Jesus has ready come. Generally they believe that He will come after a "golden era" of the Church ruling the world. Which has never been the case. For the most part post millennialism died out after ww1 and ww2. The hope for a wonderful christian world was decimated as the churches of europe succumbed to the industrial era and modernism. The idea that Human goodness ushered in by Christian rule, would in turn bring Jesus back to us was crushed out by the most devastating war in history, and the smoldering embers snuffed out by the ensuing forever wars that followed.

Dirtman · Aug 14, 2022

Now we stand somewhere between A Brave New World and 1984, and the church a diaspora, refugees in enclaves scattered neglected and shunned except when we are a convenient scape goat for the failings of neo humanism.
Which is why mostly post millennialism is gone, and we wait for Jesus to return to save us from this valley of the shadow of death.

Evmur · Aug 14, 2022

Clayman said:

Agreed they are saying Jesus is in league with Satan and working with him.

Jesus gives two reasons why He isn't in league and working with Satan, the first is
that if He was then they are working against themselves and therefore are divided and can not stand. And if Jesus is casting them out by the finger of God surely then the kingdom of God has come

The second is that when a strong man is armed and in his house his goods are in peace unless one who is stronger comes and overpowers him, Jesus casting out demons proves that He is stronger and therefore His kingdom will stand and Satan's won't therefore not only are they not in cahoots with one another but Jesus shows He is stronger than Satan by binding him and plundering his house.

Also I believe for some strange reason premils have trouble with these verses the same way post mils and amils have trouble with rev 20 and the literal 1000 yrs.

And those on both sides can claerly see the mistreatment of these particular verses by the other and are blind to their own discrepancies, IMHO.

what they have in common is that they are adamant that the Jews will not reign.

Beckie · Aug 14, 2022

Dirtman said:

Yes, dispensationalism , Scofield's bible took hold about that time. Convincing her she needs a plan of escape, instead of trusting the Lord. Ignoring the parable of leaven as being God's Word. Matt 13:33 & Luke 13:20. Jesus tells us the Kingdom will as leaven grows the bread . Page 1015 -16 , of scofields notes 1967 ed, we have Scofield opposing the Words of the Lord. And the church bought it, hook line and sinker.

Dirtman · Aug 14, 2022

Beckie said:

Yes dispensationalism did start taking hold and became the dominant view. However Many churches that came out of the reformation were a- millennial all along and maintained their view even today.

Ethan1942 · Aug 14, 2022

Studying the deceit of the dispensationalist Scofield Study Bible footnotes, is what eventually made me a postmillennialist

The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are different, according to Scofield on Matt 6:33
" The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven (See Scofield "Matthew 3:2") , in five respects:"

In the harmony of the gospels, there are eight parallels where "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God are synonymous.
The gospel of Matthew is the only book in the Bible where "kingdom of heaven" is found. Matthew is from Jewish perspective.
Jesus uses "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" as synonyms in Matt. 19:23-24

Scofield on 2 Chron. 9:26 "The river," i.e. Euphrates, to the border of Egypt, but not to the "river of Egypt." Cf. Genesis 15:18 yet to be fulfilled:"

That contradicts the words of Scripture in Josh 21:43-45; 23:14-16; 2 Chron 9:26; 1 Kgs 4:21; Neh. 9:23, 24

Adam Clarke's commentary is dated 1826 and Darby did not write until the 1830s. So who before Darby denied the clear statement of Josh. 21:43-45?

"The cavil is as foolish as it is unprincipled which states, "The Israelites never did possess the whole of the land which was promised to them, and therefore that promise could not come by Divine revelation." With as much reason might it be urged that Great Britain has not subdued the French West India Islands and Batavia, (Feb. 1812,) because the ancient inhabitants still remain in them; but is not their serving under tribute an absolute proof that they are conquered, and under the British dominion? So was the whole land of Canaan conquered, and its inhabitants subdued, though the whole of the ground was not occupied by the Israelites till the days of David and Solomon. In the most correct and literal sense it might be said, There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel: all came to pass. Nor shall one word of his ever fail to any of his followers while the sun and moon endure." Adam Clarke Commentary on Josh 21:43-45

Skeptics of today still deny the Bible is infallible and the inspired of God and they use this passage along with others: https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jos/21.html

So dispensationalists are deniers of the word God, just like skeptics of today as well as those in the past before Darby.

Dispensationalists do not teach two resurrrections, they teach at least three as Scofield reads in the comment on 1 Cor. 15:52
"The "first resurrection," that "unto life," will occur at the second coming of Christ 1 Corinthians 15:23 the saints of the O.T. and church ages meeting Him in the air 1Thess 4:16; 1Thess 4:17 while the martyrs of the tribulation, who also have part in the resurrection Revelation 20:4 are raised at the end of the great tribulation."

Isa 9:7 Scofield states: The "throne of David" is a phrase as definite, historic, historically, as "throne of the Caesars," and as little admits of "spiritualizing."

In Acts 2:3--35 the Apostle Peter applied David's prophecy about Christ on his throne, to the resurrection and ascension to the throne in heaven. Peter said that was what David prophesied, not a literal throne in a future, physical Israel.

Scofield on the parable of the mustard seed, Matt. 13:31,22 " The parable of the Mustard Seed prefigures the rapid but unsubstantial growth of the mystery form of the kingdom from an insignificant beginning Acts 1:15; 2:41; 1 Corinthians 1:26 to a great place in the earth. The figure of the fowls finding shelter in the branches is drawn from Daniel 4:20-22. How insecure was such a refuge the context in Daniel shows." So the kingdom of heaven in its growth is unsubstantial and does not provide secure refuge???

Scofield on the parable of leaven: Matt. 13:33 "kingdom of heaven" here in Matthew but "kingdom of God" in Luke 13:20,21 -
"The use of the word in the N.T. explains its symbolic meaning. It is "malice and wickedness," as contrasted with "sincerity and truth" 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, it is evil doctrine Matthew 16:12 in its three-fold form of Pharisasism, Sadduceeism, Herodianism ; Matthew 16:6; Mark 8:15. The leaven of the Pharisees was externalism in religion. Matt 23:14; Matt 23:16; Matt 23:23-28 of the Sadducees, scepticism as to the supernatural and as to the Scriptures Matt 22:23; Matt 22:29 of the Herodians, worldliness--a Herod party amongst the Jews ; Matthew 22:16-21; Mark 3:6."

So, leaven represents "evil doctrine" in this parable, according to Scofield. Try substituting that for the word leaven in Luke 13:20, 21 -

"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like "evil doctrine" which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." (Luke 13:20-21, KJV)
STUPID AND BLASPHEMOUS!

John Gill describes the time before the 2nd coming of Christ in what he calls the "spiritual reign of Christ". What Gill teaches as the spiritual reign, is how I understand the 1000 years, the millennium, which I view as the time between the 1st and 2nd advents.

"now will the interest and church of Christ, make the greatest figure it ever did in the world; now kings shall come to the brightness and glory of Zion; her gates shall stand open continually for the kings of the Gentiles to enter in; who will become church members, and submit to all the ordinances of Christ's house; their kings shall be nursing fathers, and their queens nursing mothers: and this will be the case, not only of one or two, or a few of them; but even of all of them; for all kings shall fall down before Christ, and all nations shall serve him: churches shall be raised and formed everywhere; and those be filled with great personages: now will be the time when the kingdom, and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High. #Isa 60:3,10,11 49:23 Ps 72:10,11 Da 9:27."
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace2/bk5-ch14.html

Ethan1942 · Aug 14, 2022

Dirtman said:

The religious humanism form of post-mil teaching died out after the attempt to bring in the kingdom of God by the civil authority. First declaring slavery in itself is sin and it must take war to stop it; then came government takeover of the schools; then woman's movement, and of course prohibition that really was a great success. God's word still stands true in every detail.

We live by God's word, not our own estimation as we humans see the world: (For we walk by faith, not by sight (2Cor 5:7, KJV)

Post-millennialists believe that the millennium happens from the 1st to the 2nd advent, or a latter portion thereof.

The_Watchers_2017 · Aug 14, 2022

you do realize Scofield was considered a charlatan and heretic?

and you are reading his notes like they are Gospel

1. His claim to have fought with General Lee is disputed as is his alleged decoration for service in the Confederate army in 1861.7

2. His ‘rank perjury’ in swearing the oath of office to become District Attorney for Kansas in June 1873, denying he had served in the Confederate Army8, a post he then had to resign just six months later following well publicised charges of extortion and blackmail.9

3. The desertion of his first wife Leontine, and daughters Abigail and Marie-Helene from 1877 and failure to provide for them.10

4. The unsubstantiated claim that he was admitted to the Bar of St. Louis and practised law.11

5. The discrepancies surrounding his alleged conversion in 1879 in jail and also while practising law.12

6. The criminal charges of fraud and embezzlement brought against him between 1877-1879, some following his alleged conversion13 resulting in at least one jail sentence.14

7. His persistent refusal, even as a Christian minister, to make restitution to those he had defrauded.15

8. The embarrassment of having divorce proceedings initiated against him by his wife Leontine in 1881 while he was pastor of Hyde Park Congregational Church, St. Louis . Her divorce papers charged Scofield with, ‘…gross neglect of duty…’ having, ‘failed to support this plaintiff or her said children, or to contribute thereto, and has made no provision for them for food, clothing or a home…’ 16 The court decided in favour of Leontine after some delay in 1883 and issued a decree of divorce in December of that year, describing Scofield as, ‘…not a fit person to have custody of the children.’17

9. His nomination as pastor to the First Congregational Church of Dallas in 1882, by James H. Brookes was apparently without reference to or acknowledgement of any Christian obligation to provide for his family.18

10. Discrepancies exist in the accounts of his alleged theological training prior to ordination.19

11. Discrepancies exist in the conflicting length of his courtship and the date of his second marriage to Hettie Van Wark in March 1884, only three months after her arrival in Dallas and his divorce becoming final.20

12. Doubts have been raised as to claims made that Scofield made several visits to London prior to 1903,21and claims that he studied and lectured in Rome, Paris, Geneva and Berlin between 1906-1907.22

13. Scofield apparently conferred a doctorate on himself in 1892.23 The 1897 Northfield Bible Conference, for example, lists Scofield’s name with a D.D. yet there is no evidence of this award being conferred by a university or college. ‘We are not aware of any degree-awarding institution which in the 1890’s would recognize dispensational accomplishments.’24

14. In 1904, addressing a gathering of Confederate veterans in Dallas, Scofield made pejorative and racist remarks concerning blacks and whites.25

15. Major discrepancies exist in his Who’s Who in America 1912 entry both in terms of misstatements, factual inaccuracies and omissions, including the dates of his marriages, the names of his three children, and subsequent divorce.26

16. In 1909 and 1921, despite significant royalties from the Scofield Reference Bible, he wrote to his daughters Helene and Abbie, explaining his inability to help them financially as he was suffering from chronic ‘Scofielditis’, his euphemism for ‘a purse which has grown dismally empty.’27

A Few of the Scriptures that Make me Post-Millennial

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Banned