The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Randy Kluth]

The two verses that go before Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) support the idea of a spiritual kingdom. The two verses that follow Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) show the Lord giving a spiritual response to their question.

I completely disagree. One can spiritualize anything. In this case, the restoration of Israel is grounded in the OT Prophets who *did not* spiritualize "Israel!"

Replacement Theology is the product of frustrated Christianity, among those who did not see immediate results among the Jewish People. They failed to see that Jesus predicted the nation, as a whole, would take an entire age before the nation would be brought back to being a godly nation. Luke 21.

The disciples then interjected with a question: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

Premillennialists attribute much extravagant, extensive and grandiose detail to this simple question. They build a whole school of thought pertaining to a supposed period after the second coming out of this basic inquiry. They call it a millennial age and make it a Jewish-orientated kingdom. Nevertheless, and significantly, New Testament Scripture knows nothing of such an old-covenant-type Jewish age. That has been reduced to the history books.

The NT is based on the OT, where the idea of Israel's restoration was literal--not spiritualized!

What Premillennialists fail to see is: there is no mention of a future period after the second coming in the question, neither is there any intimation of that.

I've answered this many times, but you'll just continue to deny it. Reference to a future Kingdom of Christ is all through the OT Prophets, and also referred to in the NT as in Acts 1.6-7, which you want to "spiritualize." The word "Millennium" does not have to be included to validate the idea of a future Messianic Kingdom!

It's like saying there is no evidence that a sun exists in the morning because nobody has mentioned how big it is. Of course there's a sun! Of course there's a future Kingdom--it just doesn't require having its duration listed every time it is mentioned!

What pure rationalization! When I give you real evidence of a future Kingdom and a future restoration of Israel in Acts 1.6-7 you simply dismiss it as meaning something else! You're purely a dogmatist and incapable of recognizing anything but the flying pig you wish to believe in.

 

[covenantee]

What pure rationalization! When I give you real evidence of a future Kingdom and a future restoration of Israel in Acts 1.6-7 you simply dismiss it as meaning something else! You're purely a dogmatist and incapable of recognizing anything but the flying pig you wish to believe in.

There is no "future restoration of Israel in Acts 1.6-7".

Explained previously, but you always ignore it.

Jesus' response to the disciples' question is instructive. He refers to times and seasons.

Exegetically, times and seasons are associated with the day of the Lord, which is the final end of all things temporal.

Paul clarifies it.

1 Thessalonians 5
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

Peter completes it.

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


There is not the slightest hint of a restored carnal Israelitic kingdom; and any reference thereafter to a "kingdom of Israel" never again appears in Scripture.

Jesus had made it clear that Israel was stripped of its kingdom, and under impending judgment and destruction. (Matthew 21:33-45)

That judgment and destruction fell upon it in 70 AD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no "future restoration of Israel in Acts 1.6-7".

Explained previously, but you always ignore it.

Jesus' response to the disciples' question is instructive. He refers to times and seasons.

Exegetically, times and seasons are associated with the day of the Lord, which is the final end of all things temporal.

Paul clarifies it.

1 Thessalonians 5
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

Peter completes it.

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


There is not the slightest hint of a restored carnal Israelitic kingdom; and any reference thereafter to a "kingdom of Israel" never again appears in Scripture.

Jesus had made it clear that Israel was stripped of its kingdom, and under impending judgment and destruction. (Matthew 21:33-45)

That judgment and destruction fell upon it in 70 AD.

I'm sorry, brother, but Acts 1.6-7 must be considered along with 2 Peter 3.10. Is it possible to have both the destruction of local land and local sky and the restoration of Israel? Of course!

We saw the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in WW2, and Japan was restored. Atomic bombs destroy local earth and sky, as can be seen with the enormous plume that follows the dropping of such bombs.

When we universalize prophecies that are largely understood in a local context, then confusion sets in. Certainly there will be universal judgment. But the destruction itself is to be understood in a local context, because when the Scriptures were written everything was largely viewed in term of local geology--not universal geology.

The earth was not viewed as a "globe," but rather, as the land underneath a nation. The heavens were viewed as the sky above a nation, rather than as the entire atmosphere surrounding the earth. There will be a universal judgment on earth in a single hour. But it will be viewed from nation to nation in the local context of each nation, the sky and the earth within the realm of each nation.

 

[covenantee]

I'm sorry, brother, but Acts 1.6-7 must be considered along with 2 Peter 3.10. Is it possible to have both the destruction of local land and local sky and the restoration of Israel? Of course!

The question is not "is it possible?".

The question is "is it Scriptural?".

It is not.

Where do you get "local" from?

2 Peter 3:10 is the final destruction of all.

That certainly includes Israel.

 

[WPM]

Try to broaden your outlook.

I always want to learn more. But there is nothing of historic value that you have advanced to this conversation. All I see is you ranting.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The question is not "is it possible?".

The question is "is it Scriptural?".

It is not.

Where do you get "local" from?

2 Peter 3:10 is the final destruction of all.

That certainly includes Israel.

The question is one of language--not of Scripture. If you read the restoration of Israel literally in Acts 1.6, then yes, it is indeed Scriptural. If you read the destruction of heaven and earth in a universalist way, then it is illogical to view the restoration of Israel literally.

But I think it is illogical to view the destruction of the universe literally because the Bible indicates the earth is "forever." It would be contradictory for the Bible to then say that all will be destroyed when in reality the Bible says the earth will *never* be destroyed.

The only option for me is that the *language* indicates "heaven and earth" to refer to a local perception of this, as a person in a certain place views the entire sky above him engulfed in flames and smoke, and the earth all around him having all vegetation and life removed and destroyed. It is, in fact, a matter of language as to whether you view Israel's restoration as literal or not, as biblical or not.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I always want to learn more. But there is nothing of historic value that you have advanced to this conversation. All I see is you ranting.

I'm not ranting. I'm dealing with a person who simply quotes again and again Amill arguments from early Christian history. Many of us already know the early Amill arguments vs Premill. Amills characterized Premill as an illicit reconstitution of Jewish legalism and as an excessive interest in material luxury in the Millennium. It was a false equation of Premill with Cerinthus and with Jewish legalism.

Repeating this does not make your arguments scholarly and of "historical value." It is just an attempt to consume time and space with Amill arguments that have already been provided. And as a consequence it hopes to dispel all Premill arguments as insubstantial and "non-historical."

 

[covenantee]

The question is one of language--not of Scripture. If you read the restoration of Israel literally in Acts 1.6, then yes, it is indeed Scriptural. If you read the destruction of heaven and earth in a universalist way, then it is illogical to view the restoration of Israel literally.

But I think it is illogical to view the destruction of the universe literally because the Bible indicates the earth is "forever." It would be contradictory for the Bible to then say that all will be destroyed when in reality the Bible says the earth will *never* be destroyed.

The only option for me is that the *language* indicates "heaven and earth" to refer to a local perception of this, as a person in a certain place views the entire sky above him engulfed in flames and smoke, and the earth all around him having all vegetation and life removed and destroyed. It is, in fact, a matter of language as to whether you view Israel's restoration as literal or not, as biblical or not.

There is no language in Scripture more literal, global, unambiguous, and unmistakable than 2 Peter 3:10.

There is no "certain place", because all certain places are "burned up" along with all else.

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

It offers absolutely no hope for a restored Israel.

 

[Truth7t7]

I'm not ranting. I'm dealing with a person who simply quotes again and again Amill arguments from early Christian history. Many of us already know the early Amill arguments vs Premill. Amills characterized Premill as an illicit reconstitution of Jewish legalism and as an excessive interest in material luxury in the Millennium. It was a false equation of Premill with Cerinthus and with Jewish legalism.

Repeating this does not make your arguments scholarly and of "historical value." It is just an attempt to consume time and space with Amill arguments that have already been provided. And as a consequence it hopes to dispel all Premill arguments as insubstantial and "non-historical."

Randy you post again and again your "Zionism" in a National Israel being restored, what a joke!

A future "Jewish" hope based upon National Origin and Race "Really"

Randy wants to call out those that deny this pipe dream "Zionist" fairy tale

Pot, Kettle, Black

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Truth7t7]

There is no language in Scripture more literal, global, unambiguous, and unmistakable than 2 Peter 3:10.

There is no "certain place", because all certain places are "burned up" along with all else.

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

It offers absolutely no hope for a restored Israel.

You don't understand "Covenantee", it's not going to be the complete earth being burned as you suggest, the Greek words for "fire" and "dissolved" don't really mean what is written, it means a cleansing of man's works "not literal burning fire"

This "Symbolic" cleansing fire is preparing for Gods chosen people the Jews to rule the earth from Jerusalem in God's glory during the "Millennium", it's going to be wonderful!

You need to be opened minded and understand what God's words really say, I can help you if you like?

 

[WPM]

I'm not ranting. I'm dealing with a person who simply quotes again and again Amill arguments from early Christian history. Many of us already know the early Amill arguments vs Premill. Amills characterized Premill as an illicit reconstitution of Jewish legalism and as an excessive interest in material luxury in the Millennium. It was a false equation of Premill with Cerinthus and with Jewish legalism.

Repeating this does not make your arguments scholarly and of "historical value." It is just an attempt to consume time and space with Amill arguments that have already been provided. And as a consequence it hopes to dispel all Premill arguments as insubstantial and "non-historical."

Obviously I believe Premil is unbiblical. But what is advanced by most modern-day Premils is similar/identical to these ancient early Premil heretics. These are the founding fathers of modern-day Premil. Notably, you or no Premil has been able to present one early orthodox Chiliast that held to this modern paradigm, none. And, remember, I have presented this on several boards. You have presented anything of historic weight, nothing. All I get when. I touch this is your frustration, lectures and ad-hominem. Until they do the evidence stands strong. People need to know the roots of their theology. It reveals a lot.

 

[WPM]

You don't understand "Covenantee", it's not going to be the complete earth being burned as you suggest, the Greek words for "fire" and "dissolved" don't really mean what is written, it means a cleansing of man's works "not literal burning fire"

This "Symbolic" cleansing fire is preparing for Gods chosen people the Jews to rule the earth from Jerusalem in God's glory during the "Millennium", it's going to be wonderful!

You need to be opened minded and understand what God's words really say, I can help you if you like?

Hopefully you are saying this in jest, because it is totally in error.

 

[covenantee]

Hopefully you are saying this in jest, because it is totally in error.

He just forgot the /sarc.

 

[covenantee]

Obviously I believe Premil is unbiblical. But what is advanced by most modern-day Premils is similar/identical to these ancient early Premil heretics. These are the founding fathers of modern-day Premil. Notably, you or no Premil has been able to present one early orthodox Chiliast that held to this modern paradigm, none. And, remember, I have presented this on several boards. You have presented anything of historic weight, nothing. All I get when. I touch this is your frustration, lectures and ad-hominem. Until they do the evidence stands strong. People need to know the roots of their theology. It reveals a lot.

Thanks brother for all of your research and insight on this topic; most illuminating.

 

[WPM]

Thanks brother for all of your research and insight on this topic; most illuminating.

Thanks bro! Appreciate.

 

[WPM]

Randy you post again and again your "Zionism" in a National Israel being restored, what a joke!

A future "Jewish" hope based upon National Origin and Race "Really"

Randy wants to call out those that deny this pipe dream "Zionist" fairy tale

Pot, Kettle, Black

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

So true!

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no language in Scripture more literal, global, unambiguous, and unmistakable than 2 Peter 3:10.

There is no "certain place", because all certain places are "burned up" along with all else.

I'm afraid you just don't understand the problem I speak of. It's one of language. Universalist language does *not* always refer to everything. You can use colloquial phrases like, "the whole world is on fire," and know for certain is doesn't refer to the entire globe. It may only be someone's backyard, or a reference to political squabbles in an international sense.

The Bible uses such universalist-type expressions for an empire or a specific Kingdom, with no intention of expressing the global or planetary sense. There are many, many examples of this.

To say "the elements will melt" indicates no universal sense at all--it could just be the elements nearby you. When combined with "the heavens," this sounds universal. But again, nobody thought, when they wrote the Scriptures, that they were writing to people with a degree in geography!

People understood "the earth" to be the land under their feet for any distance depending on context. If no sense of a globe is given in context, then "the heavens" cannot mean the "atmosphere around the whole planet." Rather, it refers to the skies overhead for a reasonable length of space--certainly not the entire universe!

Again, the Bible makes it plain that God created the universe not to destroy it, but to establish it forever. Insensibly that would mean God would have to start creating all over again, completely failing with His original blueprint!

The Bible does indicate, however, that God will render a "new creation," which in context indicates it will be a "makeover"--creating something along a new order, yet utilizing the original earth.

The universalist-type language expressing judgment on earth could apply to an empire or to the entire human race, depending on context. The eschatological context of the Bible indicates Messiah is coming to destroy the Antichristian Empire. Thus, this empire will see its heavens on fire and its land destroyed, along with its armies.

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

It offers absolutely no hope for a restored Israel.

If the universe cannot be completely destroyed, then yes, Israel can be restored! The Scriptures say the earth is forever. Believe it.

 

[covenantee]

The Scriptures say the earth is forever.

Sure. But everything on it will first be "burned up".

Israel included.

The disciples inquired about Israel's restoration. But Jesus' answer referenced destruction Scripture, not restoration Scripture.

An abomination will not be restored thereafter.

From 2 Peter 3:10 Greek:

1093 [e]
gē
γῆ
[the] earth
N-NFS

a. the earth as opposed to the heavens: Matthew 5:18, 35; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 2:14; John 12:32; Acts 2:19; Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 3:5, 7, 10, 13;

There are Scriptures in which "ge" means land, and those appear in the definitions. They do not, however, include 2 Peter 3:10.

 

[Randy Kluth]

1093 [e]
gē
γῆ
[the] earth
N-NFS

a. the earth as opposed to the heavens: Matthew 5:18, 35; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 2:14; John 12:32; Acts 2:19; Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 3:5, 7, 10, 13;

There are Scriptures in which "ge" means land, and those appear in the definitions. They do not, however, include 2 Peter 3:10.

Actually, it does. 2 Peter 3.10 ηξει δε ημερα κυριου ως κλεπτης εν η οι ουρανοι ροιζηδον παρελευσονται στοιχεια δε καυσουμενα λυθησεται και γη και τα εν αυτη εργα ευρεθησεται

 

[covenantee]

Actually, it does. 2 Peter 3.10 ηξει δε ημερα κυριου ως κλεπτης εν η οι ουρανοι ροιζηδον παρελευσονται στοιχεια δε καυσουμενα λυθησεται και γη και τα εν αυτη εργα ευρεθησεται

What Thayer/Strong category does that appear in?