The Millennial Syndrome

It is better to inquire about my understanding of the Davidic Covenant, which can ONLY be understood in the light of the Son of David ruling on the earth.

In further thinking on the above, let me say that I don't really understand what you mean by the above. Thusly, I can't intelligently comment much on it except to give my own viewpoint. Sorry, I guess you will need to expound more on the above idea.

When you disagree with someone on a viewpoint, it is expedient that you first learn what that viewpoint is. Understanding comes first. Disagreement comes later. Therefore I would encourage you to learn the millennial view so that you won't argue against a mischaracterization of it.

Example: Going by your thoughts, the dead ones raised for judgment will be ruled for 1,000 years by Jesus.

I don't know anyone who believes this.

Example: Going by your thoughts, the dead ones raised for judgment will be ruled for 1,000 years by Jesus.

Sorry, I mispoke there. That's what I get for not reviewing what I wrote and hit the "already previewed" box and then "post" - bad decision. It was supposed to be the "dead ones raised for rewards will be ruled for 1,000 years by Jesus" - with a "rod of iron"? Why? They are saved, are they not? And where do you find what goes on in this 1,000 year period in the Bible? There are many more questions that could be asked of the dispensational and pre-millennial viewpoints.

And do you really understand my viewpoint?

Yes, you believe that the "millennium" is now, Christ is reigning from the right hand of the throne of God, that when He returns, there will be a new heavens and new earth. This view is typically called "amillennialism." But that title is really a misnomer, since those who hold the view believe we are in the "millennial" reign of Christ now. You view the 1000 years mentioned in the book of the Revelation as symbolic of the period of time between the ascension of Christ and his return. He will return and judge the living and the dead and then install the eternal state.

I understand the view... and since I utilize a literal hermeneutic, I reject the view. (I do like my friends who hold the view though... I don't reject them) :)

Actually, my view is of the "Historicist" viewpoint. We look at the views of futurism as a misunderstanding of many prophecies and the changing of the terms used by the writers of Scripture to produce a contorted view of what is said. Using the tools of hermeneutics, such as exegesis and etymology, and looking at how the terms were used at the time employed, we feel our viewpoint is more viable than the other viewpoints. Do we "condemn" other viewpoints? Absolutely not. Most of the end time viewpoints are not what salvation is all about. I do not believe that ignoring all that has happened in history and attempting to place all of them into the future provides a satisfactory answer.

As for me understanding futuristic viewpoints, well, I hear many variations of each of them, some contradictory in themselves. It, at times, is very confusing. It seems that not all individual in any one particular strain of belief understands it the way another one in the same strain of belief does. Do you understand that?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.