Skip to comments.Amillennialism vs Premillennialism
Posted on 06/19/2012 1:55:20 PM PDT by wmfights
In this article, we first examined the tap root that contributed to the rejection of a literal thousand-year kingdom on earth, the dominant view for the first two centuries of the church, in favour of a spiritualized kingdom unlimited in duration (amillennialism). The single factor: the adoption of an allegorical hermeneutic, which replaced the literal or face-value hermeneutic of Jesus and the apostles. Four sub-roots fed this hermeneutical shift. First: the anti-Jewish bias of the early church developed as a result of a church dominated by gentile believers. Second: an overreaction to heresy, which included the condemnation not only of heretical doctrines, but chiliasm as well. Third: the adoption of Platonic and Gnostic teachings on the evil of the material world which led to a rejection of a material, earthly future kingdom. And fourth and finally: the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. The church no longer looked for the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom and rescue believers from persecution, but instead saw the newly-found freedom and prominence of the church as the fulfillment of the promises of a future kingdom.
(Excerpt) Read more at rapturenotes.com ...
I ran across a fine lesson plan giving a brief summary of the shifts in hermeneutics, to which I refer you:
(A downloadable PDF file from the Chafer Theological Seminary)
"HIGHLIGHTS IN THE HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS" starts on page 23 -- complements the treatment in this article.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness in providing this poat!
I have just finally got it through my English-thinking thick head that the early patristics did not need to translate the texts composing the canon of the New Covenant -- they only had to interpret its meaning; which, taking the literal method, they could understand and communicate the thoughts of The God to the minds of men without finding a need to grasp for "deeper meaning."
Ah, so --- ! (the light bulb turns on!)
I agree with you there! The Tribulation is called "The Time of Jacob's Trouble" in Scripture. It is NOT meant for the believers in Christ who are still alive, we are the Bride of Christ. What kind of groom beats the crap out of His bride prior to their wedding feast? No, we will clearly be taken up, "Come up hither!", we will be told and that will start the clock on the seven years of tribulation the world has NEVER seen before. It will REALLY hit the fan in the last half (after 3 1/2 years) and will culminate in the coming of Christ upon the Mount of Olives to destroy the armies arrayed to annihilate Israel. Before they know what hits them, it will be over and the rule and reign of the righteous King for a thousand years will begin.
Not to minimize the truly horrendous persecution going on in the church of Christ from the start even until today, but the Great Tribulation will be Almighty God's wrath upon all those who despise the truth and seek to destroy His chosen people, Israel. Nothing will compare to that! But we will NOT be partakers of this wrath. He has "not appointed us to wrath".
Though I wake up every day wondering if this is the day, I do not let it keep me from doing what I know God wants me to do that day. It is NOT laying around waiting for the Rapture like some of the Thessalonians were doing - quitting their jobs and expecting everyone to feed them while they waited for Christ's return. It is our "blessed hope" because we know that one day we WILL be with Him. I like the saying, "Live every day as if it were your last. One day, you will be right." God bless you!
Let's puncture that balloon -- O to get 0 electoral votes. That should be our aim, not just to defeat him but to utterly, totally repudiate his socialist policies
I try to look at all of scripture with a very open mind...But I have yet to find scripture taken out of context to fit a pre-Millennial, pre-Tribulation view...
As far as Ive been able to determine, the most literal reading of Scripture is a premillenial, post-tribulation one.
Their may very well be a post-tribulation Resurrection...There's scripture there that indicates such an event...
However, in Revelation while the earth and it's inhabitants are being decimated with the plagues, there's a Wedding taking place...In Heaven...And it's the wedding of the Groom and the Bride, the church...During the Tribulation...
The story is that the esteemed Catholic Origen invented the allegorical practice of reducing the meaning and understanding of scripture to mere babble...
Nothing means what it says or even says what it says, except for those parts of scripture and parts of sentences that the Catholic religion claims it has the authority to decipher and translate...
Oddly, Origen was kicked out of their religion...
Prior to Origen and the left hand turn of some of the religious of the day to pagan Rome, the scriptures were taken literally as can be seen by the writings of the earliest church fathers and no doubt those who refused to follow the apostates to Rome...
Naw, we just see what fits together and what doesn't...When the bible says that Jesus will come and only believing Christians will see him in one place, and then in another place we are told that when Jesus comes, the entire world will see him, we don't have to bend any scripture to know that those things aren't the same...
Perhaps you are the one bending scripture to make them the same...
Scripture is it's own interpreter; it's own dictionary. Take 1 Thessalonians 4:12 to 18 and test it by Scripture. For a start, for every redeemed,regenerated Christian, the Lord Jesus has already come, and we live in His presence. Eph 2: But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him, in the Heavenly places, in Christ Jesus...
So there's no heaven then, either...We are in heaven right now...
You certainly had to skip tons and tons of scripture to get where you are at...
Thanks for the ping!
“I try to look at all of scripture with a very open mind...But I have yet to find scripture taken out of context to fit a pre-Millennial, pre-Tribulation view...”
It’s routinely taken out of context to attribute verses that talk about the post-tribulation “first resurrection event” as evidence for a pre-tribulation rapture event.
“However, in Revelation while the earth and it’s inhabitants are being decimated with the plagues, there’s a Wedding taking place...In Heaven...And it’s the wedding of the Groom and the Bride, the church...During the Tribulation...”
During the very end of the tribulation, just before the triumphal return of Christ. To think otherwise is to say that those resurrected, dead first and then the living, to join Him miss out on the festivities.
Well, then there’s Panmillennialism - it’ll all pan out in the end.
Symbols in the Bible always stand for something. God doesn't put symbols in the Bible just for kicks and giggles. The symbols always stand for something. For example, when Jesus says in Revelation 1:12 that:
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands
And in Revelation 1:16
In His right hand He held seven stars
He explains what the symbols stand for in Revelation 1:20:
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
So when Christ told the apostle John to write that He will make His literal second coming to earth bringing with Him His bride, and that statement is symbolic, where in Scripture can we find what the symbols mean? Scripture interprets itself and we already see where Jesus interpreted the symbols of the seven lampstands and the seven stars - where is the interpretation of the symbol of Christ returning to earth with His Bride?
I'm really going to need to see where in the text Jesus indicates to us that we are to take that statement as anything other than literal.
Exactly. There is the current kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and the future, one-thousand year, literal, earthly kingdom of Jesus Christ where He rules the nations from Jerusalem.
Exactly. There is the current kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and the future, one-thousand year, literal, earthly kingdom of Jesus Christ where He rules the nations from Jerusalem. (GiovannaNicoletta)
Ummm, well, KOH is temporal and mediatorial and exists now. It is those "churches" which say their allegiance is to The Lord Jesus Christ, but do not do accordingly. That is called Christendom and enfolds both regenerated believer-disciples and unregenerated believer-apostates. The Christendom will still be remaining on earth during the Great Tribulation after regenerated souls have been raptured away to join with The Christ as His Bride, according to the paradigm that I understand arises from a literal-historical-grammatical (dispensational) hermeneutic.
Is that also your understanding?
I was differentiating between the current spiritual kingdom and the future, literal, earthly one-thousand year kingdom with Jesus Christ ruling the nations from Jerusalem.
Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17: 20-21)
The Greek word for "within" is entos, which is accurately translated in the midst of. It really should be understood as Jesus saying the Kingdom of God is within your midst, or among you. In other words, wherever Jesus is, it accompanies him. What it does NOT mean is that it resides in everyone.
There is no current earthly kingdom of Christ but there will be in the future. What we have now is a "spiritual" kingdom, which certainly does not include everyone who calls himself "Christian", which will cease to exist at the Rapture. There are many who, for various reasons having nothing to do with a genuine salvation experience, consider themselves "Christian", and will be stunned at finding themselves launched into the Tribulation.
I'm in agreement with you.
I'm glad you found it worth reading. I had the same thought.
The historical summary is a good point of departure for further study, because the fundamental error of Christendom has been of choosing the wrong methods for translation and interpretation, leading to confusion in matters which the Koine Greek made crystal clear to the thoughts of those who employed it as a matter of daily life, and only needed a discipler (didaskalos) trained to explain the articles common to The Faith of The Christ.
Here is a point of departure for us. It seems pretty clear to me that as a hierarchical system began to dominate and the the church-state model emerged that those who embraced these changes were the ones who abandoned literal interpretation. I doubt these would be the churches to trust on interpretation.
I agree that the RCC fell into this error, but what we often overlook is the other churches that came out of the church-state model did the same thing to a lesser extent. The churches that embrace the 5 solas don't apply Sola Scriptura to eschatology, or their modified sacramental system. Among these two groups the RC's and the Reformed we hear the same condemnation of Premillenialism as a recent fad, but the truth is there if they really want to see it.
I think there is a lot of room for discussion about when the Rapture occurs, but to deny a millennial reign of Jesus Christ on Earth (amillenialism) is denying the beliefs of the Apostolic Era Christians and the generations that immediately followed.
Actually, I didn't. I was calling attention to a political movement in the past that many here don't want revivified. Where you got the idea that Prof. Rothbard was trying to discredit Scripture, I don't know. He wasn't.
Oh. I glanced at both to make sure I wasn't confusing them, but evidently I did. Thanks.
You can take what I posted as either a false alarm or as a more elliptical warning about theocracy. I had thought that premills were the ones who saw themselves as having a duty to make society more holy so as to deserve the return of Christ.
Anyways, there is nothing in either that enjoins the use of government. Both visions can be implemented through preaching, repentance and other voluntary means.
Others disagree about that and I can understand why...
From G1722; inside (adverb or noun): - within.
The Kingdom of Heaven is the physical Kingdom where Jesus will reign on earth (as it is in Heaven)...
The Kingdom of God is the spiritual Kingdom...And while the Kingdom is in our midst, the Kingdom certainly is in each and every Christian...'I in Christ and Christ in me'...
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.