# A Case For Amillennialism-?



## moral necessity

I picked up the book, A Case For Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger over the weekend, and am on Chapter 8. Has anyone read this yet? If there are any dispensationalists or pre/post millennialists who have been persuaded into Amillennialism, I just wondered what scriptures or reasoning convinced you of such a theological move?

Blessings!


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

I've read it and thought it was pretty good. An even better book for me was Jay Adams' _The Time Is at Hand_. Adams is an orthodox preterist as well as an amillennialist. Riddlebarger is an amil and a futurist.


----------



## RamistThomist

I read it twice, first time as a postmillennialist and the second time as a premillennialist. It is well-written. he doesn't always deal with the opposition's strongest arguments. While I am not a postmillennialist nor a preterist, I wasn't impressed with his handling of that area. his arguments against classical dispensationalism was good; If I recall correctly he didn't really deal with progressive dispensationalism.


----------



## Pilgrim

I heard several lectures by Dr. Riddlebarger at a conference recently. One reason no doubt he focuses so much on dispensationalism is that he used to be a Dispensational as well as the apparently pervasive influence of groups like Calvary Chapel in So. Cal.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> I heard several lectures by Dr. Riddlebarger at a conference recently. One reason no doubt he focuses so much on dispensationalism is that he used to be a Dispensational as well as the apparently pervasive influence of groups like Calvary Chapel in So. Cal.



 and, sad to say, the more zany forms of classical dispensationalism have a vice-grip on Evangelical culture.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I read it and found it very helpfull. I am a little biased though being an amillenialist myself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tcalbrecht

Dr Mike Kear said:


> I've read it and thought it was pretty good. An even better book for me was Jay Adams' _The Time Is at Hand_. Adams is an orthodox preterist as well as an amillennialist. *Riddlebarger is an amil and a futurist*.



I believe Riddlebarger identifies himself as a historical idealist amillennialist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Blueridge Believer

in my opinion, these are some of the best lectures on Revelation from an amill viewpoint I've ever heard. This brother can really preach.

Exposition of the Book of Revelation by Arturo G. Azurdia III


----------



## danmpem

moral necessity said:


> I picked up the book, A Case For Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger over the weekend, and am on Chapter 8. Has anyone read this yet? If there are any dispensationalists or pre/post millennialists who have been persuaded into Amillennialism, I just wondered what scriptures or reasoning convinced you of such a theological move?
> 
> Blessings!



I just got it and am reading it right now. When I finish it, I'll let you know what I think.


----------



## danmpem

Blueridge Baptist said:


> in my opinion, these are some of the best lectures on Revelation from an amill viewpoint I've ever heard. This brother can really preach.
> 
> Exposition of the Book of Revelation by Arturo G. Azurdia III



I've heard that from several people so far. I think I should check him out.


----------



## JM

When I bought it, it was in a sale bin with a bunch of word of faith books and from what I remembered it was a good read. 

I'd like see hear/see a debate between Pastor Jim McClarty from Grace Christian Assembly Kim Riddlebarger on eschatology, I can't agree with Pastor McClarty's dispensationalism but his arguments for premil are strong.

j


----------



## Blueridge Believer

danmpem said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, these are some of the best lectures on Revelation from an amill viewpoint I've ever heard. This brother can really preach.
> 
> Exposition of the Book of Revelation by Arturo G. Azurdia III
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that from several people so far. I think I should check him out.
Click to expand...


I got so wound up listening to this series that I listened to 1 to 2 messages every day until they were finished. Really good stuff.


----------



## GenRev1611

Some dispensationalists insist that the OT sacrifices would be sovereignly reinstated in the thousand year reign of Christ. I consider this an aberration because it insists that the work of Christ was not complete. If Christ fulfills the sacrifices, then why go back. The writer to the Hebrew has alot to say about this. I believe between Chap 7-10.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

GenRev1611 said:


> Some dispensationalists insist that the OT sacrifices would be sovereignly reinstated in the thousand year reign of Christ. I consider this an aberration because it insists that the work of Christ was not complete. If Christ fulfills the sacrifices, then why go back. The writer to the Hebrew has alot to say about this. I believe between Chap 7-10.



I have heard it taught. It borders on blasphemy in my opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist

GenRev1611 said:


> Some dispensationalists insist that the OT sacrifices would be sovereignly reinstated in the thousand year reign of Christ. I consider this an aberration because it insists that the work of Christ was not complete. If Christ fulfills the sacrifices, then why go back. The writer to the Hebrew has alot to say about this. I believe between Chap 7-10.



Keep in mind that neither progressive dispensationalism nor historic premillennialism teach that.


----------



## JM

Spear Dane said:


> GenRev1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some dispensationalists insist that the OT sacrifices would be sovereignly reinstated in the thousand year reign of Christ. I consider this an aberration because it insists that the work of Christ was not complete. If Christ fulfills the sacrifices, then why go back. The writer to the Hebrew has alot to say about this. I believe between Chap 7-10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that neither progressive dispensationalism nor historic premillennialism teach that.
Click to expand...


I've always had trouble making sense of Zech. 14 which seems to teach a future Temple and sacrifices with _all_ nations keeping the Feast of Tabernacles. All of this seems to take place _after_ the battle of Armageddon when Christ returns to the Mount of Olives. If Zech. 14 is fulfilled in Christ then how are all nations keeping the Feast of Tabernacles and how did the battle of Armageddon happen, when did Christ return to the Mount of Olives?



Ok, don't mean to get the thread off track...sorry.

j


----------



## py3ak

If the Temple was a symbolic edifice, if the Feast of Tabernacles was a symbolic institution, etc., then prophecies can certainly be cast in terms of the symbol, while referring to the reality symbolized. If I have not misread him, I think that is the view Patrick Fairbairn takes in his book on _Typology._


----------



## RamistThomist

Even if they wanted to keep the sacrifices, some would argue that they wouldn't be Mosaic sacrifices in the sense of the old mosaic system. The old mosaic system was destroyed by exile(s). The sacrifices, whatever else they could be, aren't mosaic-redemptive.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

moral necessity said:


> I picked up the book, A Case For Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger over the weekend, and am on Chapter 8. Has anyone read this yet? If there are any dispensationalists or pre/post millennialists who have been persuaded into Amillennialism, I just wondered what scriptures or reasoning convinced you of such a theological move?
> 
> Blessings!



Here's another book thats very good. It's a little "sharp" at times on the rhetoric but very good nontheless.

A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism


----------



## RamistThomist

If you can get past the invective, there might be some good things in that book...I guess. A friend of mine wrote a *moral* critique of the arguments in that book.


----------



## Sonoftheday

> in my opinion, these are some of the best lectures on Revelation from an amill viewpoint I've ever heard. This brother can really preach.
> 
> Exposition of the Book of Revelation by Arturo G. Azurdia III



I have listened to several of these sermons, I think im up to chapter 7, what viewpoint is it that he teaches. I know it is amil and not futurist. It doesnt seem to be preterism, is this teaching historic idealism? I am just curious because I agree with much of what he says.


----------



## DMcFadden

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I read it and found it very helpfull. I am a little biased though being an amillenialist myself.



Hey, I've overlooked my watch, lost my keys, and forgotten my wallet. But how can you Amil boys keep losing 1,000 years?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Spear Dane said:


> Even if they wanted to keep the sacrifices, some would argue that they wouldn't be Mosaic sacrifices in the sense of the old mosaic system. The old mosaic system was destroyed by exile(s). The sacrifices, whatever else they could be, aren't mosaic-redemptive.



And so they have to invent another type of sacrificial system in order to prop up their interpretation of Ezekiel's temple, event though Ezekiel says that the sacrifice is for the remission of sin (using language from the Mosaic system).



> 10 "And the Levites who went far from Me, when Israel went astray, who strayed away from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, as gatekeepers of the house and ministers of the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them. 12 Because they ministered to them before their idols and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, therefore I have raised My hand in an oath against them," says the Lord God, "that they shall bear their iniquity. 13 And they shall not come near Me to minister to Me as priest, nor come near any of My holy things, nor into the Most Holy Place; but they shall bear their shame and their abominations which they have committed. 14 Nevertheless I will make them keep charge of the temple, for all its work, and for all that has to be done in it. 15 "But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, who kept charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near Me to minister to Me; and they shall stand before Me to offer to Me the fat and the blood," says the Lord God. 16 They shall enter My sanctuary, and they shall come near My table to minister to Me, and they shall keep My charge.
> 
> 29 *They shall eat the grain offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering; every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.* 30 The best of all firstfruits of any kind, and every sacrifice of any kind from all your sacrifices, shall be the priest's; also you shall give to the priest the first of your ground meal, to cause a blessing to rest on your house. 31 The priests shall not eat anything, bird or beast, that died naturally or was torn by wild beasts. (Ezekiel 44)



So they say the temple is to be taken literally but what goes on in the temple is not to be taken literally.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

tcalbrecht said:


> Dr Mike Kear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read it and thought it was pretty good. An even better book for me was Jay Adams' _The Time Is at Hand_. Adams is an orthodox preterist as well as an amillennialist. *Riddlebarger is an amil and a futurist*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Riddlebarger identifies himself as a historical idealist amillennialist.
Click to expand...


I think you're right about that, Tom. I guess I was thinking more about his position on the future antichrist in _The Man of Sin_ and it made me think he was a futurist.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Sonoftheday said:


> in my opinion, these are some of the best lectures on Revelation from an amill viewpoint I've ever heard. This brother can really preach.
> 
> Exposition of the Book of Revelation by Arturo G. Azurdia III
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have listened to several of these sermons, I think im up to chapter 7, what viewpoint is it that he teaches. I know it is amil and not futurist. It doesnt seem to be preterism, is this teaching historic idealism? I am just curious because I agree with much of what he says.
Click to expand...


I think he comes from the historic idealist viewpoint.


----------



## JM

> And so they have to invent another type of sacrificial system in order to prop up their interpretation of Ezekiel's temple, event though Ezekiel says that the sacrifice is for the remission of sin (using language from the Mosaic system).



The issue of animal Sacrifices is a hard issue, but details are given in Eze. 40:39 – 42 and 43:18 – 46:24. It’s important to note, these animal Sacrifices are clearly different then those found in the Mosaic system with a few elements of the Mosaic system remaining. One theologian writes, ‘Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offering under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross.’ I don't believe this to be true but I'm still trying to figure out all these issues. We know that ‘it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,’ [Heb. 10:3] The OT sacrifices produced an outward ceremonial cleaness, a ritual purification on the people which allowed them to draw near as worshippers of God. We find sacrifices even made for inanimate things Ex. 29:37, no remission of sins can be had for inanimate things. Atonement in this day and age of theology, I think, has a deeper meaning then it did in the OT sense of the word, for instance, describing the work of Christ on the cross. The work of Christ has more of a reconciliation to God in mind (Rom. 5:11). I believe the passages in Hebrews insist that no future offerings can deal with sins any more then they did in the past...if they're are going to be any in the future... I just don't understand the need for exact details in Ezekiel if it's to be understood in the spiritual sense. Without arguing for a future Temple, when we read in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 about the anti-Christ who 'sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God,’ how is this possible without a Temple? 

I asked before, if Zech. 14 is fulfilled in Christ then how are all nations keeping the Feast of Tabernacles and how did the battle of Armageddon happen, when did Christ return to the Mount of Olives? 

It's confusing. 

Peace and thank you.

j


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> The issue of animal Sacrifices is a hard issue, but details are given in Eze. 40:39 – 42 and 43:18 – 46:24.



I think that premills make it a hard issue ignoring typology. Matthew Henry explains it well:

The general scope of it I take to be, ... 2. To direct them [the Jews] to look further than all this, and to expect the coming of the Messiah, who had before been prophesied of under the name of David because he was the man that projected the building of the temple and that should set up a spiritual temple, even the gospel-church, the glory of which should far exceed that of Solomon's temple, and which should continue to the end of time. The dimensions of these visionary buildings being so large (the new temple more spacious than all the old Jerusalem and the new Jerusalem of greater extent than all the land of Canaan) plainly intimates, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that these things cannot be literally, but must spiritually, understood. At the gospel-temple, erected by Christ and his apostles, was so closely connected with the second material temple, was erected so carefully just at the time when that fell into decay, that it might be ready to receive its glories when it resigned them, that it was proper enough that they should both be referred to in one and the same vision. Under the type and figure of a temple and altar, priests and sacrifices, is foreshown the spiritual worship that should be performed in gospel times, more agreeable to the nature both of God and man, and that perfected at last in the kingdom of glory, in which perhaps these visions will have their full accomplishment, and some think in some happy and glorious state of the gospel-church on this side heaven, in the latter days.​
Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume IV (Isaiah to Malachi) | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

As does Gill:
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible


----------



## JM

Thanks RJS, but I fail to see how this handles the details given. What in the text from Eze. would make them a "type and figure" of the Church? I read that they are but we're not told why they are. It was quoted, "that these things cannot be taken literally, but must spiritually, understood" because the details would make the Temple too big. That's fine, but what in the text would lead us to believe it can't be understood literally and that it has to be spiritually?

The same with the 1000 years in Rev. I read often that this is only stated one place in the Bible, fine, but how many times are we told we must be born again? 

I asked before, if Zech. 14 is fulfilled in Christ then how are all nations keeping the Feast of Tabernacles and how did the battle of Armageddon happen, when did Christ return to the Mount of Olives?

I'm just trying to understand.


----------



## tcalbrecht

JM said:


> And so they have to invent another type of sacrificial system in order to prop up their interpretation of Ezekiel's temple, event though Ezekiel says that the sacrifice is for the remission of sin (using language from the Mosaic system).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of animal Sacrifices is a hard issue, but details are given in Eze. 40:39 – 42 and 43:18 – 46:24. It’s important to note, these animal Sacrifices are clearly different then those found in the Mosaic system with a few elements of the Mosaic system remaining. *One theologian writes, ‘Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offering under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross.’* I don't believe this to be true but I'm still trying to figure out all these issues. We know that ‘it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,’ [Heb. 10:3] The OT sacrifices produced an outward ceremonial cleaness, a ritual purification on the people which allowed them to draw near as worshippers of God. We find sacrifices even made for inanimate things Ex. 29:37, no remission of sins can be had for inanimate things. Atonement in this day and age of theology, I think, has a deeper meaning then it did in the OT sense of the word, for instance, describing the work of Christ on the cross. The work of Christ has more of a reconciliation to God in mind (Rom. 5:11). I believe the passages in Hebrews insist that no future offerings can deal with sins any more then they did in the past...if they're are going to be any in the future... I just don't understand the need for exact details in Ezekiel if it's to be understood in the spiritual sense. Without arguing for a future Temple, when we read in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 about the anti-Christ who 'sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God,’ how is this possible without a Temple?
> 
> I asked before, if Zech. 14 is fulfilled in Christ then how are all nations keeping the Feast of Tabernacles and how did the battle of Armageddon happen, when did Christ return to the Mount of Olives?
> 
> It's confusing.
> 
> Peace and thank you.
> 
> j
Click to expand...



Scofield ... It all gets back to his and Darby's aberrant system. 

I agree it can get confusing if you adopt the literalist futurist's presuppositions about things like temple, sacrifices, feast of tabernacles, Armageddon. The presupposition is that these things must be taken "literally" and must be future. But you first have to demonstrate that they were intended by the writers to be taken "literally".


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> I asked before, if Zech. 14 is fulfilled in Christ then how are all nations keeping the Feast of Tabernacles and how did the battle of Armageddon happen, when did Christ return to the Mount of Olives?



Hi brother,

I am no scholar on this but I think you need to revisit the hermenutics of interpreting prophesy. I am currently waiting for the volume on prophecy in the _Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis_ series. I know that I am not the one to teach you....


----------



## JM

Mr. Albrecht, thanks for supplying a name for that quote I didn't know where it came from as I quoted it through a secondary source three or four years ago. I'm sure not sure how to answer those points you raised because I can't demonstrate if the points you raised where literal or not. I'm just going to throw my hands up and walk...

RJS, I'll have to check it out. I know Don Fortner has some work on these topics online so I'll start there.

j


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> RJS, I'll have to check it out. I know Don Fortner has some work on these topics online so I'll start there.



A favourite of mine on Ezk is Banner of Truth Book Detail but it is more devotional than exegetical.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

DMcFadden said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it and found it very helpfull. I am a little biased though being an amillenialist myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've overlooked my watch, lost my keys, and forgotten my wallet. But how can you Amil boys keep losing 1,000 years?
Click to expand...


Are there only 144,000 saints, or did John fail to count some?


----------



## JM

The 1000 years = a period of time, it doesn't have to be a literal 1000 years just a literal period of time, it could be 999 or 1001.


----------



## RamistThomist

JM said:


> The 1000 years = a period of time, it doesn't have to be a literal 1000 years just a literal period of time, it could be 999 or 1001.



Agreed. The important thing about a millennium is that we (premils) use it to explain the fact that Scripture (Psalm 72, Isaiah 11, 55, 60-63, Ezekiel 36) does present an era where there is a change in creation which would seem to suggest, as most amils conceive it, something similar to the New Creation. The only problem is that evil is still extant, which is impossible in heaven. The amil--and some postmills--can say "Well, this is the church age and these golden passages simply refer to the church." Such a move, however, is completely arbitrary nor does it actually explain any of the data. The postmil can explain this better than the amil, but the postmil runs into problems elsewhere.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Spear Dane said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1000 years = a period of time, it doesn't have to be a literal 1000 years just a literal period of time, it could be 999 or 1001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The important thing about a millennium is that we (premils) use it to explain the fact that Scripture (Psalm 72, Isaiah 11, 55, 60-63, Ezekiel 36) does present an era where there is a change in creation which would seem to suggest, as most amils conceive it, something similar to the New Creation. The only problem is that evil is still extant, which is impossible in heaven. The amil--and some postmills--can say "Well, this is the church age and these golden passages simply refer to the church." Such a move, however, is completely arbitrary nor does it actually explain any of the data. The postmil can explain this better than the amil, but the postmil runs into problems elsewhere.
Click to expand...


The premills run into the problem of the ascended Christ living in the midst of an unrenewed earth where men are still in rebellion to him.


----------



## JM

The amils run into problems, as Jacob pointed out [Psalm 72, Isaiah 11, 55, 60-63, Ezekiel 36 and others], when it comes to the millennial kingdom...not to mention progressive parallelism and Hoekema's two age model [Amil and the Resurrection]

Peace,

jm


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JM said:


> The amils run into problems, as Jacob pointed out [Psalm 72, Isaiah 11, 55, 60-63, Ezekiel 36 and others], when it comes to the millennial kingdom...not to mention progressive parallelism and Hoekema's two age model [Amil and the Resurrection]
> 
> Peace,
> 
> jm



I am going to start another thread about that progressive parallelism.


----------



## JM

Cool, thanks. As I posted above...this is a confusing topic for me. I'm premil and it's the first position on eschatology that I ever took, from reading PB many have taken this position until they default into Amil when they become Reformed, so I'll read and study the post you make. 

Thanks Mr. Ritchie.

j
PS: Did the article link work? I tried it and it didn't.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JM said:


> Cool, thanks. As I posted above...this is a confusing topic for me. I'm premil and it's the first position on eschatology that I ever took, from reading PB many have taken this position until they default into Amil when they become Reformed, so I'll read and study the post you make.
> 
> Thanks Mr. Ritchie.
> 
> j
> PS: Did the article link work? I tried it and it didn't.



The article link just brings you to Grace Christian Assembly, not to the article.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Oh yes, I should add that the thread is entitled: "Idealism is it Hegelian?"


----------



## JM

I'm lurking on it, thank you.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JM said:


> I'm lurking on it, thank you.



No problem.


----------



## danmpem

JM said:


> I'm premil and it's the first position on eschatology that I ever took, from reading PB many have taken this position until they default into Amil when they become Reformed,



That's the same thing with me, and that's why I voted "Undecided". I'm very premil, but being on PB has made me a little more optimistic toward amill.


----------



## RamistThomist

My problem with amillennialism is that it posits a flattened ontology.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Spear Dane said:


> My problem with amillennialism is that it posits a flattened ontology.


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem with amillennialism is that it posits a flattened ontology.
Click to expand...


I'll explain later.


----------



## Sonoftheday

I once tried listening to some of the sermons found on Grace Christian Assembly website. It seemed to me that he was teaching that the Mosiac Law has no hold over the Gentile whatsoever, but the Jew must still abide by all that it teaches plus place faith in Christ for salvation, is this what he teaches or did I missunderstand his sermon??


----------



## JM

Mr. Riddle, he's a dispey and makes it clear that he is. That said, I'd suggest the following messages:

# 025 - Intro to the Millennium
# 026 - Millennialism pt.2
# 027 - Hebrews 11 and Premillennial Thinking

# 047 - Amillennialism

# 088 - The History of Amillennialism
# 089 - The History of Premillennialism
# 090 - Augustine's Amillennialsm
# 091 - Revelation 20 and Amillennialism
# 092 - Answering the Two Age Model
# 093 - Answering Hoekema pt.1
# 094 - Answering Hoekema pt.2
# 095 - Answering Hoekema pt.3
# 096 - Answering Hoekema pt.4
# 097 - Answering Hoekema pt.5
# 098 - Answering Hoekema pt.6
# 099 - Answering Hoekema pt.7
# 100 - Answering Hoekema pt.8
# 101 - Answering Hoekema pt.9
# 102 - Answering Hoekema pt.10
# 103 - Hoekema and The Resurrection

link


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem with amillennialism is that it posits a flattened ontology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain later.
Click to expand...


Please do.


----------



## JM

danmpem said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm premil and it's the first position on eschatology that I ever took, from reading PB many have taken this position until they default into Amil when they become Reformed,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the same thing with me, and that's why I voted "Undecided". I'm very premil, but being on PB has made me a little more optimistic toward amill.
Click to expand...




MR. Pemberton, did you get a chance to download the messages I posted from GCA?


----------



## Blue Dog

*lost years*



DMcFadden said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it and found it very helpfull. I am a little biased though being an amillenialist myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've overlooked my watch, lost my keys, and forgotten my wallet. But how can you Amil boys keep losing 1,000 years?
Click to expand...


US amill boys havent lost a 1,000 years It's here and now. We reign with Jesus now, "Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." (1Cor 4:8)"For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet."(1Cor 15:25) "we shall also reign with Him"(2Tim 2:12) "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
" (Rev5:10) cf.(context) Rev 20 (I know I am preaching to the choir here).


----------



## RamistThomist

Blue Dog said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it and found it very helpfull. I am a little biased though being an amillenialist myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've overlooked my watch, lost my keys, and forgotten my wallet. But how can you Amil boys keep losing 1,000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US amill boys havent lost a 1,000 years It's here and now. We reign with Jesus now, "Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." (1Cor 4:8)
Click to expand...


I see Paul's reference here as sarcasm, given the problem of an overly-realized eschatology in Corinth.




> "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
> " (Rev5:10) cf.(context) Rev 20 (I know I am preaching to the choir here).




Do you believe you are currently reigning on earth over the nations (which Revelation 2 says you will)?


----------



## holyfool33

I tried reading it but I found it so dry I gave up trying to read it and gave my copy to my pastor who is Amil.


----------



## holyfool33

GenRev1611 said:


> Some dispensationalists insist that the OT sacrifices would be sovereignly reinstated in the thousand year reign of Christ. I consider this an aberration because it insists that the work of Christ was not complete. If Christ fulfills the sacrifices, then why go back. The writer to the Hebrew has alot to say about this. I believe between Chap 7-10.



The Sacrifices will be reinstituted but they wont have any expeateing. Power it will be much as Christians now look upon the Lord's supper.


----------



## mshingler

I'm just finishing up the book. I liked it, but was disappointed, at some points, that there was not more effort at detailed exegesis. Also, it seemed like much of the exegetical work offered was simply referenced from other works like Hoekema, Kline, etc. 
I especially appreciated the chapter on the Olivet Discourse. This section of Scripture is one that I always felt like dispensationalists had to really "read into" to make it fit (I say that as one just "coming out of" dispensational thinking myself). At the same time, I've not been satisfied with the full preterist interpretation. I think Riddlebarger has a very solid and balanced understanding of these passages, taking a good bit of his material from D.A. Carson's commentary on Matt. 
I can't say that this book has convinced me, but it has helped me understand some of the strengths of the amil. position and to face the inherent problems with premil.


----------



## AV1611

holyfool33 said:


> The Sacrifices will be reinstituted but they wont have any expeateing. Power it will be much as Christians now look upon the Lord's supper.



The ceremonial system was a shadow of Christ, why would we return to the shadows when we now have the reality?


----------



## danmpem

mshingler said:


> I'm just finishing up the book. I liked it, but was disappointed, at some points, that there was not more effort at detailed exegesis. Also, it seemed like much of the exegetical work offered was simply referenced from other works like Hoekema, Kline, etc.
> I especially appreciated the chapter on the Olivet Discourse. This section of Scripture is one that I always felt like dispensationalists had to really "read into" to make it fit (I say that as one just "coming out of" dispensational thinking myself). At the same time, I've not been satisfied with the full preterist interpretation. I think Riddlebarger has a very solid and balanced understanding of these passages, taking a good bit of his material from D.A. Carson's commentary on Matt.
> I can't say that this book has convinced me, but it has helped me understand some of the strengths of the amil. position and to face the inherent problems with premil.



Johnny Mac has a book just about the Olivet Discourse. While it's not the kind of book that I think would change anyone's mind and turn 'em Premil, he does clear up a lot of tricky passages in Matt.

Also, isn't D.A. Carson Premil?


----------



## danmpem

JM said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm premil and it's the first position on eschatology that I ever took, from reading PB many have taken this position until they default into Amil when they become Reformed,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the same thing with me, and that's why I voted "Undecided". I'm very premil, but being on PB has made me a little more optimistic toward amill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. Pemberton, did you get a chance to download the messages I posted from GCA?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't. I didn't even see that post until 5 minutes ago. Thanks!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

moral necessity said:


> I picked up the book, A Case For Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger over the weekend, and am on Chapter 8. Has anyone read this yet? If there are any dispensationalists or pre/post millennialists who have been persuaded into Amillennialism, I just wondered what scriptures or reasoning convinced you of such a theological move?
> 
> Blessings!



I have read it and it changed me from a Pan-Millenialist to a A-Mill overnight. I used to think eschatology does not really matter a whole lot but that book changed my mind.


----------



## RamistThomist

danmpem said:


> mshingler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just finishing up the book. I liked it, but was disappointed, at some points, that there was not more effort at detailed exegesis. Also, it seemed like much of the exegetical work offered was simply referenced from other works like Hoekema, Kline, etc.
> I especially appreciated the chapter on the Olivet Discourse. This section of Scripture is one that I always felt like dispensationalists had to really "read into" to make it fit (I say that as one just "coming out of" dispensational thinking myself). At the same time, I've not been satisfied with the full preterist interpretation. I think Riddlebarger has a very solid and balanced understanding of these passages, taking a good bit of his material from D.A. Carson's commentary on Matt.
> I can't say that this book has convinced me, but it has helped me understand some of the strengths of the amil. position and to face the inherent problems with premil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnny Mac has a book just about the Olivet Discourse. While it's not the kind of book that I think would change anyone's mind and turn 'em Premil, he does clear up a lot of tricky passages in Matt.
> 
> Also, isn't D.A. Carson Premil?
Click to expand...


Yes. The Evangelical Free Church demands it.


----------



## Zadok

There are series of mp3 lectures by Riddlebarger on Amillennialism and Eschatology at:

Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures)

And off topic, he also has a series on the New Perspective


----------



## ModernPuritan?

seems to me that Christians for the past 2,000 years have been shot, burned alive, tortured, used as living torches and such. even today people die for the sake of Christ and his kirk. I should think that the whole tribulation will be just as widespread as it was in rome, and no more fatal or troubling to Christians.


----------



## danmpem

ModernPuritan? said:


> seems to me that Christians for the past 2,000 years have been shot, burned alive, tortured, used as living torches and such. even today people die for the sake of Christ and his kirk. I should think that the whole tribulation will be just as widespread as it was in rome, and no more fatal or troubling to Christians.



From what I understand, those who teach of the rapture teach that the rapture is a time of the absolute worst judgment of God ever brought upon the earth, as opposed to the last 2,000-10,000+ years which have been the result of original sin.


----------



## tdowns

*Historicism....*

That's where it's at! This week anyway...I'm reading up on it now, very interesting...

Welcome to the Web Site of the Historicism Research Foundation.

What is Historicism?
If you are like many Christians, you probably have never heard of this method of interpreting Biblical prophecy. Historicism is unlike Preterism, which teaches that most of prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. It also differs from Futurism, which teaches that prophecy will only be fulfilled at some future date. In brief, Historicism teaches that biblical predictions are being fulfilled throughout history and continue to be fulfilled today. The Book of Revelation is a pre-written history of the Church from the time of its writing to the future Second Advent of Christ, which shall usher in the new heaven and new earth.

Preterism has little to say to us today since it inteprets predictions as mostly fulfilled. Futurism is beyond the Church, because most Futurists believe that a secret rapture will remove the Church from the world. However, if the Bible and Revelation speak to the Church in ALL ages (as Historicism teaches), it is of great importance that we listen.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

AV1611 said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sacrifices will be reinstituted but they wont have any expeateing. Power it will be much as Christians now look upon the Lord's supper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonial system was a shadow of Christ, why would we return to the shadows when we now have the reality?
Click to expand...


they were done originally to look to Christ, the understanding is that those would be done simply to point back to Christ as a more visible reminder than the Lords supper.


----------



## tcalbrecht

ModernPuritan? said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sacrifices will be reinstituted but they wont have any expeateing. Power it will be much as Christians now look upon the Lord's supper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonial system was a shadow of Christ, why would we return to the shadows when we now have the reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were done originally to look to Christ, the understanding is that those would be done simply to point back to Christ as a more visible reminder than the Lords supper.
Click to expand...


It seems in order to support that argument you need to spiritualize all the references in Ezekiel 40-48 to the blood sacrifices as a sin offering (cf. 40:39; 43:18-27; 44:9-11, 13-15). 

If you can reinterpret those references, then certainly you can interpret the entire vision to be representative of Christ's sacrifice and present millennial reign instead of something literally on the earth around a literal temple after Chrtist's second coming.

Why do we need a more visible reminder than the Lord's Supper esp. if Christ is physcailly present an one may examine His wounds? 

I must admit that many of these notions about what will be taking place by whom and where during the earthly meillennial reign never made any sense to me when I was a futurist.


----------



## DavidGGraves

To the original question:

I am currently reading it after having listened to the academy lectures on the web. It made me admit to myself that although I have called myself historical-premil for the last few years, in point of fact apparently I am amil. 

As to the question on the sacrifices in millennium, as Riddelbarger quotes Dwight Pentecost in this regard, they are memorials. I think that it is linked to a purely memorialist view of the sacraments found among many dispensationalists. So while I find the issue highly problematic, let us not impute to them the charge of not relying on the sufficiency of Christ. For we must remember that the early church including Paul still spent time in the Herod's Temple and Paul even made purificatory sacrifices. So let us not impute to our discussion partners something that they have not said before interacting with their position, a courtesy, that I hope they will extend to us, as as has heretofore been the tenor of this discussion.


----------

