amillinnial discussion
Discission on Dispensationalism and Covenant theology of the end times.
Christian: the biblical end times view is more accurately called a "leaky dispensationalism" view.
💥Links provided at the end of discussion 🙂
The biblical end times view presented here will point to Premillinialist/Pretribulation view, as does Scripture.
Discussion
Amillinnialist Q:
Some think God had a Covenant with Israel, but they rejected the Savior, and say God's covenant is now with the church. Thinking the church is the new Israel.
Dispensationalism taught by John Nelson Darby was put in the Scofield study Bible in 1800's. That Theology has been taught in most seminaries around the world. But some old theologians were amillianialist.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
Sir, 👉never in the Bible is the Church said to be new Israel. Never. Paul talks about the Church being made partaker of God's spiritual blessings in the sense of a branch being grafted into the tree, but then immediately speaks of God's plan for ethnic Israel as well. The Church never replaced Israel.
Amillinnialist: Romans 2:28,29 seems to say that the true Jew is one who’s heart has been circumcised by the Spirit. That would be the church (believers), right?
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
it doesn’t say that at all. It simply says the true Jew is one who is circumcised in his heart v29. You basically took a text and added something to it that is not there at all. Jesus said I'll build my church, not I have built, or I have been building my church
That was differentiating among the OT Jews. Those that were circumcised in their heart. There was no such thing as the church. The church was not present when Jesus declared I'll build my church. He didn't say I have built, or i have been building.
Amillinnialist:
We can't separate the Bible from it's history. When you do this you end up making the Bible say what you want it to say.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
the History of the Bible is different from History of the Church. The test of a doctrine is not in the number of people following it, nor the age of it. But whether it can be supported from within the Scriptures.
Actually when we go by tradition, we are in danger of making the same mistakes those before us made. Bible doesn’t need tradition to supplement it.
I don't argue based on tradition. Argue based on Bible, and only Bible.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
👉 We are still waiting for your Scripture reference that says Church is Israel v 2.0 🙃
i have yet to find a single instance where Church is said to be the fulfillment of Israel, or the replacement of Israel, or spiritual Israel.
Israel always means ethnic Israel [nation] in the Bible and Church is a new thing in the New Testament made after the breaking down of the barrier between Jew and Gentiles after the death of Christ. That doesn't mean Church has superseded Israel permanently
Amillinnialist: Open your eyes and let the Bible speak for itself. Read the text exegetically and not eisegetically.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
Sir, my interpretation of Bible is quite simple. I read it and understand it as it says. I dont care who has interpreted it in what manner. I am not bound by prerequisite hermeneutics apart from always literal when its possible. Only when I read the text, and then fit my narrative into it, then I do eisegesis, not exegesis. For example, I read a certain prophecy and then instead of understanding it plainly, I allegorize it, that is eisegesis.
Sir, that’s replacement theology. The Bible absolutely doesn’t teach that! Paul anticipated that argument.
1 Romans 11:1-2: "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew."
2 Romans 11:29: "For God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable."
3 Romans 9:4-5: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."
4 Isaiah 59:20-21: "The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the Lord. "As for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord. "My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever," says the Lord."
5 Galatians 3:29: "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise."
These verses affirm the ongoing significance of God's covenants with Israel and demonstrate that God has not rejected his people. They also suggest that the promises made to Israel are still applicable and that the Church does not replace Israel, but rather participates in the blessings of God's promises to Israel.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
Isaiah 53 is future Israels confession looking back at what they did to the Messiah. It’s not only describing Christ on the cross.
... there’s a remnant of Jews in Israel that come to faith in Jesus at the end. That’s the fulfillment, ALL OF ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED. The gentiles that came to Jesus by faith the church and those repentant Jews that Jesus save’s during the tribulation.
that Covenant is not over. The Scriptures is clear in the end times, during tribulation. God is not done with the Jews. It is right there in the Bible
Let's use Scripture....
Romans 11:25-29 totally refutes this idea.
25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.” 27“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”
28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
To abandon His promises to Israel you make God out to be unable to fulfill them.
Amillinnialist:I think most Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D. so Rev was written 68-69 A.D.
Was most early church up until 1850 Amellianialist? I dont see the rapture taught in Scripture. When Christ comes back then but for good.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
Sir, of course the word rapture isn’t in the Bible because the original wasn’t written in english. It was written in Greek, the word is harpazo, it’s meaning is to pluck or be caught up. That’s where we get the word Harp, how do you play a harp? You pluck the strings.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17: "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."
caught up is the word Harpazo
what’s the first thing that happens after the letters to the seven churches in revelation chapter 4?
After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."
Revelation 4:1
It’s the same word harpazo from 1 Thessalonians. Same trumpet
Caught up, Snatched out of.
And, your Escatology is wrong, here also, in that Jesus isnt returning to earth "for good". After the MK....He is going "to destroy this earth", as Scripture clearly says.
sir, if most of revelation was fulfilled, then why would John write a future Prophecy in 95 AD, when it already happened in 70 AD? The event that happened in 70 AD is a forshadow of the future prophecy.
You have to explain the verse in Mark, For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. Mark 13:19
There has been without a doubt a greater tribulations since 70AD, on a global scale. But, you’re telling me 70AD was worse than the flood?
Amillinnialist:
Many think it is a conspiracy theory that the Scofield Bible was backed by the antichrist-Jews is responsible for most of this modern teaching. But i believe it.
The amillinial view says events already happened and certian teachings put verses out there 2000 years into the future. Amillinial thinks most of Revelation has already happened. So, we would be in the millinium right now.
From what I know Revelation was written between 68-69 A.D. I believe this has been the date throughout church history until the mid 1800's. Find me any good Theologian that believed Revelation was written after 70 A.D. before the mid 1800's.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
I am not speaking here from ignorance. I am a student of theology myself. I have studied every view from before 1850s as you have repeatedly mentioned. I have read almost every major reformers, Puritans. And I severely disagree with their eschatology for a simple reason, the Church is not the New Israel.
The traditional view is that the book was written during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian, who ruled from 81 AD to 96 AD.
One argument for a late date, such as 95 AD to 96 AD, is that the book's depiction of the Roman Empire as a dominant world power fits well with the historical context of Domitian's reign.
1800? How about earlier references in the late second century. [See link]
The first recorded account of the book of Revelation being written in 95 AD to 96 AD comes from the early Christian writer Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the late 2nd century. In his work "Against Heresies," Irenaeus cites the book of Revelation as having been written during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian, who ruled from 81 AD to 96 AD. This is the earliest known reference to a specific date for the composition of the book of Revelation, and it has since become the dominant view among traditional scholars.
Amillinnialist:bgive me a little time to research your claim. I would like to see it myself. Can you give me a source?
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
Certianly
Revelation was written according to most scholars in 68-69? Any arguments for early date is blown out of water by the arguments for later date of 95-96. And the early date is before 67, not 69-69.
Please research before trying to debate here.
Why (?) would you need to go research when you said youve been studying this for years, "have a degree", and have a so called solid grasp on your belief of amillinnial. Are you just running to amillinial sites to copy paste? Can you have this convo without having it solid in your mind to discuss? 🙃
Amillinnialist:
I believe most of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D. so that would mean are right now in the millinium.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
in the first 1000 years of Christianity, there are 9 accounts of the date of Revelation. Theologians such as Iraeneus,Polycarp,Eusebius etc from the first 500 AD all held to later date. The first mention of an early date comes from Syriac commentary written in the 6th Century AD. The second account for later date comes in the 9th Century AD,and the third in the 10th Century.
Dating of Revelation was my major study during my M.div.
Amillinnialist:
Show me your sources for the dates you're proposing.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
here are a few.
1. Against Heresies" - This is Irenaeus' most well-known work, a treatise in which he argues against various Gnostic teachings that were prevalent in the early Christian communities. In this work, Irenaeus provides valuable information about early Christian theology and practices, and it is widely regarded as a valuable source of information about the early Christian church.
2. "Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching" - This is a shorter work by Irenaeus that provides an overview of early Christian theology and serves as a defense of orthodox Christian belief.
3. Eusebius' "Church History" - Eusebius of Caesarea was a 4th-century Christian historian who wrote a comprehensive history of the early Christian church. In his work, Eusebius provides valuable information about Irenaeus and his life and work, and he cites passages from Irenaeus' writings.
4. "Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus" - In addition to his surviving works, Irenaeus is known to have written several other treatises that have since been lost.
However, fragments of these lost writings have been preserved in the writings of later Christian authors, such as Eusebius, and they provide valuable insights into Irenaeus' thoughts and beliefs.
These are just a few of the primary sources available if you’re interested in learning more about Irenaeus of Lyons. There are also many secondary sources, such as books and articles written by modern scholars, that provide further analysis and interpretation of Irenaeus' life and work.
Amillinnialist:
I was told Puritans and Reformers chose the earlier date. It appears here I see the cloud of witnesses spoken about in Rev 1:17. Amillinnial says Nero and his minions came to town to destroy it 70 A.D. and believes that Rev was written as a warning to people at that time to flee Jerusalem when certain events started to happen Matt 24, Mark 13. If you look hard enough you will see most of Rev already taking place (including all the signs). The Jewish Historian Josephus backs all this up in his work "Wars of the Jews." Josephus himself says that most of Rev had already taken place. He actually lived about that time and was eye witness to what he seen.
I have read early actual works for this topic.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
thats incorrect and not only not biblical, its not historical in reality.
And Jesus is not currently physically here reigning over the earth as King. That MK is future.
And we dont need to "look hard enough" cuz unlike you/amillinnials we arent trying to force something into Scripture to fit a man made teaching. You need to study the Bible more because you are not going the way of truth.
Amillinnialist: "God began showing me" that an earlier date for Revelation aligned much better with Amillinnial view. That's when I started studying it.
God has an elect Bride and I dont think it is the nation of Israel. I believe new Israel is the church. All the promises God had given to the nation of Israel in the OT is now given to the church in the NT.
The nation of Israel are a wicked people and will not get my support. You need to do some research to see it.
The Rapture was never taught in the early church and the date according to the Puritans appears between 67-68 A.D. This is where I'm at in my walk right now.
There were some early church fathers who believed the earlier dates. But also, you are going to have to come up with something more than a few early church fathers to change my mind. I know all the arguments for dispensationalism. You are in the Scofield system. The Puritans is where you get your Theology and not from the Catholic Church.
I get what your saying and many early church fathers did teach a later date. However, most of your early church fathers were Catholic to the core. This earlier date was another big surprise most Puritans discovered during the Reformation years. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, and many others believed this earlier date.
Revelation was written around 68-69 A.D Mostly all of the Puritans believed this. Read Matthew Henry's work, that will help your understanding. Spurgeon said all men should read Matthew Henry at least once in life.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
sir, that makes no sense. wow. The reason early church fathers held to the latter date was because they were catholic? And the earlier date was discovered during the reformation?🙃
Revelation was not written at 68-69 but 95. All early church fathers believed in 95AD date.
The reference listed was himself a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John. How can you dispute the date of 95AD-96AD with that fact?
Revelation was written after AD70. How can that prophecy be fulfilled before it was written 😀🙃🤦♀️.
You are clutching at straws. You don't know the arguments for dispensationalism, and it is very evident. Your chronology, your definition, your claims, your history and the constant quoting of Puritans despite knowing very little about them speaks volumes. As someone who holds to the eschatology of dispensationalism but the soteriology of reformation, I have spent a great deal of my life in the study of history. To dismiss the early church fathers as biased catholics is something that even the most ardent defender of covenant theology wont do.
I hope you investigate this better.
you hadn't heard about early church fathers date till this morning. I have your exact quotes. And you say you've studied this topic for 3 decades 🙃🤦♂️
Amillinnialist:
most all conservative seminaries use Josephus' work. the most famous Jewish Historian of all time, but do you believe only a few of the early church fathers, most who came 100-150 years after Josephus. He was alive to see it all take place.
If you want to support the antichrist Israel, knock yourself out. Galatians Ch. 3-6 says to cast her out and don't support her.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
the antichrist isnt Israel. 🤦♀️
You say believing what the Jews say is of Satan, yet you’re telling to believe the words of a Jewish historian? Your presupposition shows you’re not looking for the truth. You are just piecing together things to fit your prefered amillinnial view 🤦♀️.
We can look at what God said in the Bible, above all others, to see what God said. Historians and church fathers can help, but they dont replace God's Word. Today we do understand more of what the former folks got wrong.
Josephus, wasn’t a Christian. But you take his word, Yet Polycarp was not only a true Christian, he was a personal disciple of John, you know the apostle that wrote Revelation, and Iraeneus was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself wrote that Revelation was written in 95-96 AD.
You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Amillinnialist:
that gives him even more credibility. He had nothing to gain for his work. This is exactly why you should believe him. No bias with Josephus. No, he just wrote down what he experienced. I'll take his advice any day over someone writing 100-150 years later.
So they say about Polycarp. The truth is they have never been able to verify that fact. Maybe he knew John and maybe he didn't. Josephus the historian can be verified and is why majority of scholars takes all his work very seriously.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
you say Jews are satanic, and were grafted out, and say none can be trusted, yet you hold Josephus in high regard, and use him when you see fit. You cant have it both ways!
Amillinnialist:
I have been through seminary Liberty University and have a Masters at Baptist Bible College. Am currently working toward my Doctorate at Luther Rice. I have been researching these topics for over 30 years.
I believe Premil view came from mid 1800's. I'm not trying to debate you, but educate you. Try hearing something outside your theological box. Upsmanship or Apologetics is prideful. Work on your Theology and dont build straw man.
...and what about Daniel?
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
sir, well i guess you think you are smart, education by others is not education by the Bible and by God. God gave us the Bible and Holy Spirit and we can look into these things without college. I hold same escatology as pastor John MacArthur, PHD, and if you want to lawd your education over someone.... hes had his degree longer than you, and faithfully preached about 60+ years now. I think he would know more than you.
Hopefully youll simply read Revelation and see that it is written in "time order". So anyone could read an understand it, peasants & learned folk. It wasnt written to be complicated or only known by higher learned folk.
Jesus will take his church out of this world (Rapture) before “the great tribulation.” Revelation reveals this; there is no mention of the church (those who are believers) from tribulation reveal onward.
Daniel 9, that prophecy was directed at Israel - a specific dispensation era.
And as far as Daniel goes we weren’t in the first 69 weeks, we aren’t going to be in the 70th. God goes back to dealing with Israel. At the end of that seven-year period, at the end of that time of testing, purging, purification comes the third and final part of the first resurrection. The raising of the Old Testament saints’ bodies and the tribulation saints. Now, it will include some Gentiles because there will be Gentiles saved during the tribulation who will be martyred just as there have been Gentile proselytes to Judaism through its ancient history. So these will be raised at the end of the tribulation.
Sir, you are the only one trying to do upmanship here with your pride boasting about your education, yrs researching, and et al, but it won't work to try to use that to silence others, and push them into false end times teaching, just because you say so or claim you think you know it all.
You are building a strawman. And trying to deceive others.
You and others can look into it more here, or open your Bible. Regardless if youre here when the Rapture happens, your beliefs wont matter anymore, youll have seen you were in error, (but that wont matter anymore either). But leading others astray to false teaching is not a good thing.
Amillinnialist:
you should read Theologians such as Matthew Henry. Seems you refuse to learn anything outside your own preconceived ideas, and building straw men. I have given you all kinds of Scripture, Theologians, church history, but you refuse it. Waiting for a more serious conversation.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
sir, you do realize people learn things over time right? Their views change if they study well a topic, and not all see their error till they die. Not every theologian, nor yourself, have everything right at some point, or even now. So its the Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater situation. One can learn some things from those in the past, but even denominations show, people had it wrong, grow, move to more biblical understandings after having figured out things more accurately.
Dont try to deceive people by saying MH was perfectly knowledgeable or point people to Amillinnial theologians & teachings to dupe them to your end view, you need to provide Premil views too so people can investigate or reinvestigate it and examine it themselves. And be open to the fact that your current view could be wrong.
You were provided info in the link to investigate this, But you are refusing to go look so far.
You will not be teachable if you are just attacking others. Perhaps take a step back.
Amillinnialist: be a Berean, so you know.
Premillinialist/Pretrib reply:
You added nothing to a end times discussion here and were just trying to was convert people by weak debate, & claimed to be so knowledable but everyone here knocked out all your opinions and views, with Scripture, history & facts, and it made you look uneducated and unprepared.
Do you have teachable spirit? You need to be a Berean too, so go review the links provided. If you genuinely look.... you will find you missed a lot, misunderstood a lot, were lead astray, and need to look into this more properly.
Amillinnialist: We should be Bereans. Thanks all for the exchange. I learned a lot from you.
Links to research this topic
Refuting Amilinialism (offsite)
End times (series & faq)
Comments
Post a Comment