Imminent.

[ATP]

You have not yet resisted sin to the point of death.

Committing sin and also resisting it both bring death? What do you make of this.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Committing sin and also resisting it both bring death? What do you make of this.

27. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28. so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:27-28
The scripture speaks of two deaths, the second being of an eternal nature and eternal separation from God. Everyone dies a physical death, the consequence of sin. The only people who are not to die are those mentioned in 1st Corinthians chapter 15: 51. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed 52. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
Those who have believed Christ are to inherit an incorruptible kingdom, so our corruptible bodies (and corrupted minds) must be made incorruptible first (completely without sin and no longer subject to death.)
God declared a judgment against all flesh in the days of Noah, but we are told that Noah found grace together with his family. Prior to the flood, God declared that the thoughts and intents of man were only evil continually and after the flood, he declared the very same thing.
The scripture tells us that God has confined all men under sin so that all men might be the recipients of the promises of faith and receive them in receiving Christ: But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Galatians 3:22
As death comes to all men and as the righteous judgment against sin, all men have the opportunity to receive eternal life in Him by faith. Those who don't believe, being condemned already, will receive the reward of their unbelief, while those who believe will receive eternal life. The confusion in scripture over the word "death" comes from the fact that there is no word in our vocabulary for the second death except "damned" and that word has fallen out of use in our times.

 

[Wormwood]

I don't think that's true at all.
I think this is an example of where your doctrine dictates what we can do.
And I am not bound by your strait jacket approach which dismisses all such information as to numbers that the Father, through Jesus, revealed to John!

Marcus, I chose my doctrine. It didnt choose me nor does it determine what I can and cannot do. I chose this doctrine because it is consistent both with what Jesus says about his coming in the NT, the expectation of the Apostles, what Paul says about the second coming and it treats Revelation consistently throughout and allows for an interpretation that is not only normative for apocalyptic literature, but one that would have been understandable to 1st century audiences...rather than making it about America, tanks, helicopters and other such nonsense that would have been completely meaningless and useless to the 7 churches addressed.

I don't stop the clock on the one 'seven's start when I look for the one 'seven' to commence in the future.
Gabriel put three events which happen after the sixty-two 'sevens'.
- the first happens right after Jesus' Triumpant Entry,
- the second one happens nearly four decades later, and
- the third is still ongoing and it will continue through the "ONE" 'seven' into the end.

Either way, there are gaps there. It is not a chronological 490 years, but has huge gaps that have apparently taken this 70 sevens to span across 2500 years. So we both see some symbolism/gaps in the timeline...that was all I was saying.

I think it is very clear that Revelation is playing off of the final period in Daniel as a symbolic period of suffering for the faithful. The end of Daniel that points to the "time of the end" says,

“He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.” (Daniel 12:9–10, ESV)

But John is told the opposite:

“And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”” (Revelation 22:10–11, ESV)

So, the 1290 days spoken about in Daniel 12 are coming to pass in Revelation and are portrayed as the period in which the Church is to remain faithful. I am not dismissing numbers. Rather, I think the numbers hold incredible weight and were encouraging suffering Christians that they were living in the final times that the saints had been looking forward to throughout history. They were encouraged to remain faithful for "10 days" (obviously not literal). Again, if you want to understand Revelation, you need to focus more on the OT rather than the newspapers. These things all made complete sense to early Christians who knew their OT very well and understood that the Church was the fulfillment of all the predictions and promises made to the saints in the past.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The point about "doctrine" is that it is man-made. I see "doctrine" evolving from a fundamental viewpoint. That viewpoint is reinforced by the evolved doctrine which dictates that same viewpoint into areas that are questionable, like the book of Revelation.

So all I am saying to you WW, is the only important thing is that we recognize where we fundamentally part in an intellectual manner in forming our conclusions. We can neither conclude that you are absolutely right or wrong, just as we cannot conclude I am right or wrong - because we are both right in our own eyes and the other is both wrong. Neither one of us knows the absolute truth; we are not God.

When we recognize the decision point which has us part in our common faith as it relates to eschatology, we can re-examine the assumptions we must make which form the foundation for our individual eschatology.

That we come to different ends in terms of eschatology does not necessarily mean we will fail in faith - until such time as we make decisions which could affect our faith. From your perspective to a literal futurist, it would be like me becoming a "prepper" or some other fanatical position which has me throw my life away because I (erroneously in your view) think the end it coming. When Jesus doesn't come when that person expects Him, he might then fall from faith and lose it. From my perspective to an idealist Amillennialist, it would be like you saying, 'They're doing away with paper currency, and because of ID theft, we all have to have this microchip implanted to get paid and to buy what we need - but this is not the "mark-of-the-beast" because that's all symbolic." And if it does come to pass in a most literal manner, that person will also be lost eternally.

So each of us can legitimately warn the other, and each of us will scoff at the other's warning because it does not fit our viewpoint, which we assume is true because that's what we tell ourselves.

And if you're saying we have to agree to disagree, here as quoted, I'll chime in as well. We both struggle to make sense of prophecy because it is not easy.

So we both see some symbolism/gaps in the timeline...that was all I was saying.

But John is told the opposite:
for the time is near. (Revelation 22:10–11, ESV)

Right, this is a dichotomy in the Bible. How can something be near and far away at the same time?

I think the message of the Bible does speak to each generation - because no one, especially with those who have passed away, knows when the "end" will come - and that relates specifically to their end.

Thus, the author is properly conveying God's message to us to believe - which in the Greek present tense of the NT is an ongoing process.

Because NONE of the things in book of Revelation have come to pass, or have they? The point is, is for the Christian to be constantly watching, guarding their lifestyle in a world gone wrong (And it's always been wrong!) so as to keep the faith, endure patiently, and remain faithful. Again, believing is an ongoing, daily commitment for a Disciple of Christ Jesus.

These things all made complete sense to early Christians who knew their OT very well and understood that the Church was the fulfillment of all the predictions and promises made to the saints in the past.

Well 1.) I go to the OT for end-time prophecy as well, which does describe both a Day of the Lord Wrath, and a Millennium Sabbath Reign of peace.

And 2.) you still have not relayed to me how a first-century believer could understand how a horse can have a head of a lion and mouth on its tail which shoots fire and brimstone.

And unlike the Amillenial / Post-Millennial position, the Church Age has not fulfilled either category of promises made in the OT prophecy concerning the Day of the Lord's Wrath nor the Millennium peace - unless you view those prophetic passages in a symbolic manner - which is your natural viewpoint, and one dictated by your doctrine.

 

[Wormwood]

The point about "doctrine" is that it is man-made. I see "doctrine" evolving from a fundamental viewpoint. That viewpoint is reinforced by the evolved doctrine which dictates that same viewpoint into areas that are questionable, like the book of Revelation.

Well, that is not the definition of "doctrine." Doctrine is simply a system of belief and we all have them. Timothy was told to watch his life and doctrine closely. It sounds like you are discussing "systematic theology" which can cause someone to look at particular Scriptures is a less objective way if the goal is to force those passages into the "system." Personally, I see dispensationalists doing this far more than any other theology. But, of course, we would not agree on this. In any event, I am not forcing passages into a systematic theology. I try to look at each passage in its own context rather than trying to cram all the passages into a particular end times scenario. I let each passage speak in its context and develop my eschatology based on the result. I am the first to admit that I could be wrong on such matters, but it is not because I do not take the Bible seriously or have a predetermined view that I try to force Scripture into, as you implied.

Neither one of us knows the absolute truth; we are not God.

I agree with this. However, that does not mean that I cannot evaluate your views based on what I see taught in Scripture and determine that some of those views are not consistent and, in my view, paint a very problematic view of God's plan of salvation.

That we come to different ends in terms of eschatology does not necessarily mean we will fail in faith - until such time as we make decisions which could affect our faith.

I agree that these issues are certainly not matters of salvation. My only concern with dispensationalism is that it tends to see the OT as being left unfulfilled and also tends to exalt the physical descendants of Abraham over those who are of the faith of Abraham. Maybe this is not true with you, but it most certainly is with most dispensationalists.

it would be like me becoming a "prepper" or some other fanatical position which has me throw my life away because I (erroneously in your view) think the end it coming.

My concern with dispensationalists is not that they become "preppers." Rather, it is that they tend to tie biblical texts to modern day events (Van Impe and others are notorious for this kind of stuff), and when those modern day events do not end up bringing about a one world government or when a particular leader is not the Antichrist, then it makes people discredit the Bible....rather than seeing it for what it is...just a reflection of someone with terrible eschatology. Moreover, I see dispensationalists oft trying to determine who the Antichrist is, and thus, in a quite unChristian manner, start labeling political leaders as the Antichrist and causing others to fear and hate that individual. We are to love and pray for our enemies, not defame them and call them Antichrists. (Again, not saying you do this...but it is not uncommon for those in dispensationalist circles).

From my perspective to an idealist Amillennialist, it would be like you saying, 'They're doing away with paper currency, and because of ID theft, we all have to have this microchip implanted to get paid and to buy what we need - but this is not the "mark-of-the-beast" because that's all symbolic." And if it does come to pass in a most literal manner, that person will also be lost eternally.

And this is exactly why I think this eschatology is so misguided. To think that someone's salvation is tied up in whether or not they get a microchip or card is absolute hogwash. Jesus saves us. If you love Jesus and trust in him, it doesnt matter if you get a tattoo or a microchip or anything else. What matters is whether you are faithful to him. Someone cannot accidentally lose their salvation by getting some microchip and not knowing it was some demonic sign, just as someone cannot gain salvation by not getting a microchip implanted. The Kingdom of God is not about microchips or tattoos. It is about faith, obedience and love. To turn it into something else is to mar the cross of Christ and turn the Bible into a Rubik's cube where the saved are those who were able to figure out the riddles. Right now, people have the mark of the beast or the seal of the Spirit...and they need to be made aware of that rather than worrying about silly credit cards and microchips.

And if you're saying we have to agree to disagree, here as quoted, I'll chime in as well. We both struggle to make sense of prophecy because it is not easy.

 

[Wormwood]

For some reason it messed up so I will start a new post. I agree that prophecy is not easy. I just think we need to be cautious when we start allowing the more difficult prophetic passages to cause us to reintepret the straight-forward and simple passages about the Second Coming.

I think the message of the Bible does speak to each generation - because no one, especially with those who have passed away, knows when the "end" will come - and that relates specifically to theirend.

Yes, it is true that we will all face our own end, likely before Christ returns. We all have to face our own mortality and no matter who is right on matters of eschatology, the important thing is that we are right with Jesus. I just dont like a theology of second chances or one that emphasizes a people's flesh over their faith. I do not believe God has a special plan for Israel or that the world will get a second chance after Christ returns during the tribulation and they realize they are all "left behind." Rather, when Jesus speaks of his coming, the wicked are gathered first, and the righteous are "left behind."

Because NONE of the things in book of Revelation have come to pass, or have they? The point is, is for the Christian to be constantly watching, guarding their lifestyle in a world gone wrong (And it's always been wrong!) so as to keep the faith, endure patiently, and remain faithful. Again, believing is an ongoing, daily commitment for a Disciple of Christ Jesus.

Here I agree with you 100%.

Well 1.) I go to the OT for end-time prophecy as well, which does describe both a Day of the Lord Wrath, and a Millennium Sabbath Reign of peace.

The OT never uses the term millennium. This is an example of you mushing texts together because you think one describes the other, but there is no reason in the text itself to assume that the descriptions of long life and peace in some of those prophecies are descriptions of the "millennial age." The only thing Revelation says about the millennium is that Satan is bound so he cannot "deceive the nations" any longer. There is no speak of long life or peace. IMO, the Gospel has bound Satan.

And 2.) you still have not relayed to me how a first-century believer could understand how a horse can have a head of a lion and mouth on its tail which shoots fire and brimstone.

The same reason Jesus can look like a slain lamb and a lion with seven eyes and seven horns and vomit a double-edged sword. I think it is false to assume these are literal descriptions of tanks or helicopters. There are better explanations for these images.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Rather, it is that they tend to tie biblical texts to modern day events (Van Impe and others are notorious for this kind of stuff), and when those modern day events do not end up bringing about a one world government or when a particular leader is not the Antichrist, then it makes people discredit the Bible....rather than seeing it for what it is...just a reflection of someone with terrible eschatology. Moreover, I see dispensationalists oft trying to determine who the Antichrist is, and thus, in a quite unChristian manner, start labeling political leaders as the Antichrist and causing others to fear and hate that individual. We are to love and pray for our enemies, not defame them and call them Antichrists.

I don't do that, so I must not be a dispensationalist...

The point is, is to watch. Knowing that our political leaders have all made love to the whore of Babylon (Rev 17:2) - while we are to pray for them, David, a man after God's own heart, prayed in many ways... Let his days be few; Let another take his office - Ps 109:8. So if you think Barack Hussein Obama is going to acknowledge Jesus as the only way because you pray that for him, or that he will finally do the right thing for this country in a just and moral manner - you will be sorely disappointed. If you think Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be our nations' salvation after the disaster of the reign of the Obama regime - I think you're in a for a great disappointment as well! Our leaders are leading this country down the path of Rome and they make deals with the devil all the time.

Now should the Man of Lawlessness, which the first century Christians thought they might know in the various Caesars that persecuted them, - go into the Temple - which has never taken place in history; AND which Temple was in place in the first century so that Paul's readers could conceptualize of such a literal passing of a King doing that - and declare himself God - which also has never taken place in history - which also does not mean it will never ever be - then you will have the literal fulfillment of Paul's warning to the Thessalonians!

So while your doctrine, formed over centuries of the Roman Catholic Church's teaching where not only was Israel a distant memory, none of those who taught ever thought that the State of Israel could ever be a literal fact - now is realized; you still hold onto your doctrine.

And when Israel was formed, they didn't have possession of Jerusalem, so scoffing at the idea still worked even in this modern age.

And when Israel captured Jerusalem, and still didn't take possession of the Temple Mount, but left it in charge of the Arabs with their mosque - you can still scoff at the idea of a physical Temple being in place.

But - should those Jews who are actively working to build the Temple, (check out the link) ever succeed through the force of will of a political leader who will emerge from the West (Rome) in building a Temple - then we are two steps* closer to the final, literal realization of what Paul wrote 2000 years ago - and you will rail that it is an abomination to the Lord and deny that things are falling into place! (* - That is, a covenant with many which leads to the solution of the Middle East "problem," and the building of the Temple on the Temple Mount.)

To think that someone's salvation is tied up in whether or not they get a microchip or card is absolute hogwash. Jesus saves us. If you love Jesus and trust in him, it doesnt matter if you get a tattoo or a microchip or anything else.

However! When the midpoint arrives, and on the heels of invasion from the "North" in response to Israel breaking that agreement by nuking Iran happens - and the cards are set on the table now for that to happen - Netanyahu said as much at the UN just last year - and the "King of the North" does enter the Temple, and declares himself God - which is exactly what the Thessalonians feared had happened without their direct knowledge (because they didn't have CNN back in those days) - THEN what is written is EXACTLY being fulfilled LITERALLY.

And we are warned about it in Revelation by God through Jesus to John - after the Temple was destroyed! Here is the abomination of Daniel 9:27 revealed:

And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. - Rev 13:14-17

Which our Lord said would be set up in the Temple's "Holy Place"

“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), Mt 24:15
“For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. Mt 24:22

How are you going to get your paycheck so you can buy milk, bread, and toilet paper when it snows when the Great Tribulation falls upon you?

This is why Paul said that the Man of Lawlessness will be revealed. It is foolish to try to pin the tail of the anti-Christ on Obama, or Prince Charles, or even Javier Solana (whose name means 'Savior Sun') right now - we still don't know. However, things are in place...

And your doctrine, formed over centuries of ignorance of what the end could look like - will fail you.

If when that time comes, and it is poised to happen, and you scoff that NOTHING could separate you love the love of Christ - and you attempt to save your own life by acknowledging this devil incarnate or taking his mark - then you will be one of the foolish virgins and you will lose your salvation and eternal life and you will be shut out from the wedding feast of the Lamb. Faith without works is dead - Jas 2:26

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. - Mt 16:25

So here is my warning to you: when that time comes - remember this interpretation, but remember more: the Word of our Lord communicated by an Angel:

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. - Rev 14:9-10.

It's not hogwash, but if you believe it is, then you will have let your doctrine lead you down.

Only time will tell, but I tell you this as a warning about your doctrine. Should end-time prophecy come to pass in a literal manner - your eschatology is just as dangerous as what you claim dispensationalism is.

The Elect will not fail this test.

 

[Wormwood]

I don't do that, so I must not be a dispensationalist...
The point is, is to watch. Knowing that our political leaders have all made love to the whore of Babylon (Rev 17:2)

So you do not defame political leaders or call them names, but then you follow that up by saying, "our political leaders have all made love to the whore of Babylon." smh

So if you think Barack Hussein Obama is going to acknowledge Jesus as the only way because you pray that for him, or that he will finally do the right thing for this country in a just and moral manner - you will be sorely disappointed. If you think Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be our nations' salvation after the disaster of the reign of the Obama regime - I think you're in a for a great disappointment as well! Our leaders are leading this country down the path of Rome and they make deals with the devil all the time.

I dont think any political leader holds our salvation or hope (or destruction) in his or her hands...no matter their party or heart. There is one political leader I place my trust in, and that is the King, Jesus Christ. Yet, Jesus commands me to pray for my leaders and desire blessing and good for them...not malign and mock them. God is their judge, not me or you. Remember, you will be measured by the measure you use.

So while your doctrine, formed over centuries of the Roman Catholic Church's teaching where not only was Israel a distant memory, none of those who taught ever thought that the State of Israel could ever be a literal fact - now is realized; you still hold onto your doctrine.

As I already showed you... The Roman Catholic Church did not bring about amillennial thought...it existed from the beginning, along with historic premillennialism (which is very similar to amillennialism, except that it holds to a literal 1,000 year reign). The establishment of Israel does not make dispensationalism right. I agree that God desires for every Israelite to be saved. Maybe God did this as a means of facilitating evangelism toward the Jewish people rather than as a proof for your eschatology.

However! When the midpoint arrives, and on the heels of invasion from the "North" in response to Israel breaking that agreement by nuking Iran happens - and the cards are set on the table now for that to happen -

The Bible teaches no such thing and you are depicting horrific nuclear events started by particular nations as if the Bible clearly shows this. This is your own imagination and if Iran were to dissolve tomorrow, then your teaching would cause unbelievers to view the Bible as unreliable because you have tied its teachings to your own imagination. This is the same nonsense that brought about the book "88 reasons why Jesus must return by 1988." It could be another 1,000 years before Jesus returns or it could be today. We dont need a nuclear strike to happen for the end to come. Maybe one will come, and maybe not. We should focus on on loving Jesus, not predicting political and world events.

How are you going to get your paycheck so you can buy milk, bread, and toilet paper when it snows when the Great Tribulation falls upon you?

We are in the tribulation and most Christians around the world have suffered great loss, including the loss of their own lives due to their faithfulness to Christ. This dispensational mess is nothing but Westerners in their bubble imagining what persecution will feel like while completely ignorant that most Christians in the world experience this great tribulation every day. We need to quit forming theologies around ourselves and take a look at the rest of the world and see that they are in great tribulation and we should pray for them. More Christians die each year than ever before in world history...when you talk as if we are not in this tribulation, you dishonor their suffering and sacrifice.

And your doctrine, formed over centuries of ignorance of what the end could look like - will fail you.

My doctrine doesnt form opinions about what the end will look like. It simply says that during this period of end times and the church there will be wars, rumors of wars, plagues, famines, and Christians will be killed. That is what is happening and what has happened since the conception of the Church. My end times is not based on the world's timeline and governments. It is based on the Scriptures and a longing for Christ to come back....what happens with the governments of men is of little consequence to me. My focus or expectation is not in them doing this or that.

Only time will tell, but I tell you this as a warning about your doctrine. Should end-time prophecy come to pass in a literal manner - your eschatology is just as dangerous as what you claim dispensationalism is.

How so? My eschatology makes no predictions other than 1) Christians will suffer in this world and they need to be ready to do so rather than compromise their allegiance to Jesus Christ and 2) Jesus could appear at any moment and we must be ready because we will all be judged.

All of Jesus' parables of his coming make these points and that is pretty much it...and Revelation teaches the same thing. You should research my views before you claim they are dangerous.

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars
Rev 6:1–2
but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom
Rev 6:3–4
There will be famines
Rev 6:5–6
and earthquakes in various places.
Rev 6:7–8
All these are the beginning of birth pains

Then you [disciples] will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me
Rev 6:9–11
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Immediately after the distress of those days “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken
Rev 6:12–17

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

You should research my views before you claim they are dangerous.

In this argument, you were the one to raise the charge of dangerous first. So any remonstrate call to study, redounds to you as well. I only responded in kind from the opposing view (that you attempted to excoriate as unfitting to even hold for any Christian) to show that no one view is "safe" from the eyes of the other view. Each can have its pitfalls depending on how you approach this very important, but at the same time, scary - book in the Bible: Revelation.

In this argument, which has been reduced to the popular culture of 10 second sound bites of 'your view is dangerous!', I sought to find the fundamental reason that we differ so much. So unlike your charge here, I did research your view, and it is a common one held by many, and as I posted before, one of four ways the book of Revelation can be legitimately viewed. And whether you like it or not, literal futurism is a legitimate mode of interpretation. You cannot stamp it out just by claiming its hogwash.

Now one of my character defects is jumping on what I perceive as error. This doesn't win me many friends on message boards like this, but I am compelled to raise the flag when I see blatant falsehoods presented as truth.

As I already showed you... The Roman Catholic Church did not bring about amillennial thought...it existed from the beginning, along with historic premillennialism (which is very similar to amillennialism, except that it holds to a literal 1,000 year reign).

I did not say that the Roman Catholic Church brought about Amillennial eschatology.

• I said it had Amillennialism had its origins from Augustine of Hippo, a very important fourth century church leader.
• His teaching sprouted from the realization of Rome as the embodiment of Christianity, and hence God's Kingdom on the earth.
• When Rome fell after his death, the spiritual aspect Augustine founded was emphasized and thus your whole interpretation style of idealism was born.
• That Pope Gregory rose to fame in the sixth century less than a century after Rome "fell" shows Rome never went away.
• The slow metamorphosis of the RCC in the harlot of Rev 17, which became the mainstay of Amillennialsm, reinforced something which began before it.
• The RCC did not bring Amillennialism about. It cemented it in its doctrine.

However, church leaders before Augustine were not Amillennial.

• Historic Pre-Millennialism by definition is not Amillennial.
• It is not similar because it did not develop from the idealist view.
• It held a literal view which was futuristic.
• Thus my Pre-Wrath view is actually older than yours.
• One of the oldest church leaders was Papias of Hierapolis. He espoused pre-millennialism.
• He was also a chiliast, which we are not, but one thing about ALL the early leaders, is that they all had their flaws: none were perfect.
• The point is: early church leaders are no better equipped than us to say what the Bible means.
• In that manner, we are all democratically equal: we have one source which we are all trying to understand.

In fact, I will do so far as to say Paul was the earliest literalist.
In his second letter to the Thessalonians, he describes a physical, brick and mortar buidling, naos, in which the doomed man violates the worship of God, calling himself god instead.

So Amillennialism traces its roots back to the time before Rome fell, when Christianity was the official religion of the whole Roman world - which is all those limited people knew.

Amillennialism is not anything like Historic Pre-Millennialism, but it is a distinctly different eschatology having formed with a definite schism in the very foundation upon which prophecy is viewed - idealistically rather than literally.

Essentially what we doing is arguing from opposite viewpoints over the same language.
For you to call me dangerous is just as offensive to me as it is for you to have me call your view dangerous.

So if you want to stop with the labels which condemn, and attempt to understand that we both have opposing, but legitimate viewpoints - we might be able to discuss our differences and how-and-where we fundamentally differ so as to appreciate another's viewpoint without condemnation.

I do not start out attacking.
I defend.
Do not confuse any 'attacks' I make upon your view as the initiation of conflict, because the best defense is a good offense.

 

[Wormwood]

In this argument, you were the one to raise the charge of dangerous first. So any remonstrate call to study, redounds to you as well.

My point was simply that if you are going to call something dangerous, then you should be able to give adequate rationale as to why it is dangerous. Your rationale did not seem to match up with a proper understanding of what I actually believe.

And whether you like it or not, literal futurism is a legitimate mode of interpretation. You cannot stamp it out just by claiming its hogwash.

Futurism has different forms. It is Dispensationalism that I have an issue with. I do not feel all of it is "hogwash" but the elements of your view in particular I was referencing.

Now one of my character defects is jumping on what I perceive as error. This doesn't win me many friends on message boards like this, but I am compelled to raise the flag when I see blatant falsehoods presented as truth.

This is a doctrinal discussion. I do not take it personally, so I hope you do not read it as such in these comments. I know just reading the text can make them sound cold, but that is not my tone. If you feel something I have said is biblically inaccurate, I welcome your comments and am more than happy to reflect and respond to your thoughts.

• 
  

  I said it had Amillennialism had its origins from Augustine of Hippo, a very important fourth century church leader.

• 
  Yes, and I told you that is inaccurate. Augustine "popularized" amillennial thought, but the interpretive approach dates back to Origen (2nd-3rd century) and likely even before him. Thus, all your other points are invalid. I do not agree with Augustine on everything, but he was a brilliant man who had some wonderful contributions to make to the church. We must remember that these early saints were dealing with issues in their day and did not have the ability to forsee all that would transpire in church history due to their decisions any more than we can see how, perhaps, some of our theological musings could impact the church hundreds of years from now (if the Lord tarries).
  

The slow metamorphosis of the RCC in the harlot of Rev 17, which became the mainstay of Amillennialsm, reinforced something which began before it.

I dont know what quotes like this are supposed to prove. You are essentially claiming my views are biblically inaccurate with a poor understanding of the history of my view as well as operating on the assumption that your view, and your interpretation of the "harlot" are correct. This is a bit of a catch-22. You cannot prove my view false by using points that assume your view is correct. That isnt really a "proof."

• 
  

  Historic Pre-Millennialism by definition is not Amillennial.

  This is true. But, as I pointed out, it is very similar to amillennialism in much it espouses except that elements such as the millennium are viewed as literal. Personally, I am quite fine with historic premillennialism and would likely lean that direction in many ways. However, this view is nothing like Dispensational premillennialism so let us not presume that because both use the term "premillennial" that it gives credence to your view. Also, you should note that there are historic/traditional premillennialists that do see much spiritual application in the depictions in Revelation. You should reference Ladd's "Historic Premillennialism." I will provide more information in this regard shortly. I am out of time for now.
  

Grace and peace.

 

[Wormwood]

Marcus,

Allow me to just speak a word of historic premillennialism. As I said, it is very similar to amillennialism except that the age of the millennium is seen as literal rather than figurative. However, most other points are similar in about every way. Below I am quoting Irenaeus who also claims to be quoting from Papias and other elders that preceded him.

If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: “For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: “But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.”10 And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, “The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” And again, confirming his former words, he says, “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.”12 Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 561–562

When prophesying of these times, therefore, Esaias says: “The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid; the calf also, and the bull, and the lion shall eat together; and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young ones shall agree together; and the lion shall eat straw as well as the ox. And the infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp’s den, into the nest also of the adder’s brood; and they shall do no harm, nor have power to hurt anything in my holy mountain.” And again he says, in recapitulation, “Wolves and lambs shall then browse together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent earth as if it were bread; and they shall neither hurt nor annoy anything in my holy mountain, saith the Lord.” I am quite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous. But although this is [true] now with regard to some men coming from various nations to the harmony of the faith, nevertheless in the resurrection of the just [the words shall also apply] to those animals mentioned. For God is rich in all things. And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God (for they had been originally subjected in obedience to Adam), that is, the productions of the earth. But some other occasion, and not the present, is [to be sought] for showing that the lion shall [then] feed on straw. And this indicates the large size and rich quality of the fruits. For if that animal, the lion, feeds upon straw [at that period], of what a quality must the wheat itself be whose straw shall serve as suitable food for lions?

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 563.

And this again Ezekiel also says: “Behold, I will open your tombs, and will bring you forth out of your graves; when I will draw my people from the sepulchres, and I will put breath in you, and ye shall live; and I will place you on your own land, and ye shall know that I am the LORD.” And again the same speaks thus: “These things saith the LORD, I will gather Israel from all nations whither they have been driven, and I shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the sons of the nations: and they shall dwell in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell in it in peace; and they shall build houses, and plant vineyards, and dwell in hope, when I shall cause judgment to fall among all who have dishonoured them, among those who encircle them round about; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God, and the God of their fathers.” Now I have shown a short time ago that the church is the seed of Abraham; and for this reason, that we may know that He who in the New Testament “raises up from the stones children unto Abraham,” is He who will gather, according to the Old Testament, those that shall be saved from all the nations, Jeremiah says: “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, who led the children of Israel from the north, and from every region whither they had been driven; He will restore them to their own land which He gave to their fathers.”

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 563–564.

So, you see this "premillennial" view is nothing like what you are proposing. The "Israel" here is the Church and there is nothing in his writing or the writing of other early church fathers in this regard about a secret rapture, the establishment of national Israel, or God establishing sacrifice in the Temple again. In fact, Irenaeus says nothing of a literal 7 year tribulation under the Antichrist either (whether he believed that or not I do not know). So, essentially you have Jesus as the seed of Abraham and all who have the faith of Abraham are Israel. The Antichrist appears and brings destruction to the earth and Jesus returns to gather all Christians to live in Jerusalem during the millennial reign of blessing and peace. The only real difference here is that I see the millennium as figurative and Christ returns to rescue believers and bring final judgment and usher in the new heavens and new earth whereas these early believers believed Christ would return to rescue believers and establish them in Jerusalem and reign for 1,000 years before the final judgment (most amillennials believe in a literal, individual Antichrist, although I am not sold on the idea personally) There is no special plans for Israel, raptures of the Church, helicopters or tanks (of course) or detailed explanations about timelines and charts. It was a very simple understanding of the end with the Church as the focus, that just had a literal view of the millennium.

 

[blessedhope]

And those who mock the end-times message and the Rapture in particular. Because those who scoff have been of the abrasive, unbelieving variety for the most part, there is a standard Bible verse reply I've usually employed in response.
The scriptural reply has most often been intended to let those mocking know that they are, in actuality, fulfilling Bible prophecy.
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:3-4)
Enjoy.

 

[blessedhope]

And Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Augustine "popularized" amillennial thought, but the interpretive approach dates back to Origen (2nd-3rd century) and likely even before him.

To say that Origen was representative of eschatological thought before Augustine is not a valid point at all. He broke with what was then an established literal hermeneutic.

I really don't like when someone wants to speak for the earliest Church leaders because one, there are not that many of them, and two, their writing is not explicitly pointed in terms of eschatology in the neat little categories we have today: i.e., they're pretty fuzzy.

Now as to history, I think this excerpt from the established Bible.org website says it pretty well. Note they are in minor agreement with you, but they also refer in the larger context of which I am speaking of the Amillennial eschatology being tied to Augustine.

And the Roman Catholic Church, which has the blood of the Saints on its hands, which has been involved in the lowest of politics of Europe for centuries, and which has strayed from the Commandments of God deifying Mary and authorizing idol worship and so has become the harlot of Rev 17 - has cemented the Amillennial view as THE establishment eschatology for centuries.

If you want to argue that the Rapture is a recent invention, I'd say it is more of a re-discovery of what is always been there.

Marcus

From a political perspective, Constantine's Edict of Milan, issued in AD 313, constituted the formal beginning of a major paradigm shift that signaled the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the medieval period. That edict legitimated Christianity and impressed upon it the Empire's stamp of approval. It provided in pertinent part:

We grant both to Christians and to all men freedom to follow whatever religion each one wishes, in order that whatever divinity there is in the seat of heaven may be appeased and made propitious towards us and towards all who have been set under our power. . . . And since these same Christians are known to have possessed not only the places in which they had the habit of assembling but other property too which belongs by right to their body. . . you will order all this property. . . to be given back without any equivocation or dispute to all those same Christians.

While the edict was couched in terms of tolerance to all forms of religion, its significance and historical impact lies in the fact that its author, Constantine, was the first Roman emperor openly sympathetic to Christianity.

From a theological perspective -- specifically an eschatological one -- the Edict of Milan also signaled a monumental paradigm shift -- from the well-grounded premillennialism of the ancient church fathers to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that would dominate eschatological thinking from the fourth century AD to at least the middle part of the nineteenth century. Yet, as explored below, the groundwork for this shift was laid long before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313. In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen's allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of Augustinian amillennialism.

 

[Skitnik]

It is imminent. I can just about feel it.
Had no direct revelation but many things that are happening around me strongly "suggest" that it is time to "pack the bags".

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

From my Pre-Wrath, sequence-of-events study using a literal hermeneutic, I'd say: not yet.

But as none of us knows when we will "check out" individually, it's best to live this day like it's your last.

 

[Wormwood]

blessedhope,

And Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

If you have something to contribute, please do. I would appreciate it if you didnt question my faith because I happen to not agree with you about the rapture. For 1800 years, no one believed this concept of the rapture you hold to...and I assure you it wasnt because they were "prudent in their own sight."

 

[Wormwood]

I really don't like when someone wants to speak for the earliest Church leaders because one, there are not that many of them, and two, their writing is not explicitly pointed in terms of eschatology in the neat little categories we have today: i.e., they're pretty fuzzy.

Oh, so before you are saying that Augustine and his allegory created amillennialism, but now, when I start to point to my own early church sources that show you are wrong about this as well as what the early church believed, you no longer think it is right to quote early church people? Convenient. You should know that Irenaeus is very explicit in his eschatology. He dedicates the last five chapters in Against Heresies to talk explicitly about eschatology. Maybe it is not that their eschatology was "fuzzy" that they didnt write tomes on the 7 year tribulation, but maybe it was because, like amillennials, they had a very simple understanding of the end times and so there is nothing upon which to base volumes of conjecture.

And the Roman Catholic Church, which has the blood of the Saints on its hands, which has been involved in the lowest of politics of Europe for centuries, and which has strayed from the Commandments of God deifying Mary and authorizing idol worship and so has become the harlot of Rev 17 - has cemented the Amillennial view as THE establishment eschatology for centuries.

Marcus, you are losing all credibility with me. If you have an argument, make it. Trying to defame all Christians in the 3rd and 4th centuries as evil and part of the RCC establishment shows both an ignorance of history and theology. Do you reject the Bible as the Word of God? No? Well these same, bloody handed (pure nonsense) Christians in the 3rd and 4th centuries were the ones who canonized the NT. Do you reject the notion of the Trinity? These same wicked politicians were the ones who fought against the heresies of Arius and others and argued for an orthodox understanding of God based on the Scriptures! All this happened AFTER the Edict of Milan. So, based on your rationale, we should reconsider our Bibles and other core doctrines such as the Trinity since they were codified by such corrupt and blood-thirsty men! Sheer nonsense. Augustine was a very godly man who loved the Lord. Of course, he was fallible, like any of us. However, to paint him and these other church leaders as murdering, wicked people who corrupted the church is nonsense. It wasnt until much later that simony and other such wickedness started to infiltrate the leadership of the Church. Certainly the Church was adapting to the concept of being accepted by the empire, and later had to deal with the concept of Christianity actually becoming popular (which brought some problems, and which is why many fled to isolation and became monks), but to dismiss Amillennialism because of Augustine and the 3rd and 4th century church is just silly.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

You should know that Irenaeus is very explicit in his eschatology. He dedicates the last five chapters in Against Heresies to talk explicitly about eschatology.

Oh really? Or in my Irish Latin: O'Reillius?

One: It's not the last five chapters of his papers, but the fifth of five chapters.

Two: His writing, which we don't have all, is very limited and it's not about eschatology, but as the title of his papers says, it is against heresy, of which there was no lack in those ancient times, often spawned by sheer ignorance, but mostly from their inability to get accurate information. Irenaeus himself is also guilty of this basic flaw in knowing true facts: he wrote that Jesus was near 50 and ministered for 15 years.

Let's look at some of his explicit writing:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Wow, he really nailed the anti-Christ there.

Does he cite Daniel? No.
Does he draw any conclusions from 2Th 2:1-8? No.
Does he quote Jesus' reference of Daniel 9:27 in Matthew 24:15 and connect it to the Temple by way of His mention of the Holy Place? No.
Does he tie the anti-Cnrist to Revelation chapter 13? No.

Let's let the man tell us what the purpose of his fifth book is rather than have you portray it as a serious eschatological work:

Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables-I shall endeavour, in this the fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord's doctrine and the apostolical epistles: [thus] complying with thy demand, as thou didst request of me (since indeed I have been assigned a place in the ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means in my power to furnish thee with large assistance against the contradictions of the heretics, as also to reclaim the wanderers and convert them to the Church of God, to confirm at the same time the minds of the neophytes, that they may preserve stedfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way perverted by those who endeavour to teach them false doctrines, and lead them away from the truth.

Yeah, that's one sentence...

Point is: Irenaeus never states he is writing about his eschatology. Now we can find bits and snatches of it, but it is not well developed. It most certainly is not explicit.

We can also find "Replacement Theology" in his book, which is also quite in the minority opinion today as a viable view.

So you have your view, which you tell yourself is true. I don't share your view in the least, nor do I accept your presentation of what other peoples' thinking, now long dead - was.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Oh, so before you are saying that Augustine and his allegory created amillennialism,

No, that is incorrect. I said it has its origins with Augustine. I did not say he created it. There is a difference: words mean things.

His writings influenced the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, and has led to its Amillennial stance, which it has fully developed into a complete eschatology.

The Bible.org refers to "Augustinian Amillennialism" in much the same way, crediting Augustine for what would be developed later.