Postmillennialism
- Thread starter sastark
- Start date
- Status
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:62176855ca]
No, we say that Christ will return after the millennium. The post is talking about second advent. So, we are consistant with that. You must be talking about timming.
[/quote:62176855ca]
But don't you see that you just proved that you are redefining terms? Im not talking about "post" I'm talking about "millennium". You do not believe in a
literal 1000 year millennium; therefore, you have redefined the term millennium.
[quote:62176855ca]
First, "common sense" does not "tell us" that it means a literal thousand years.
[/quote:62176855ca]
Ok, I have to stop you right there. Do you mean to tell me that if I stopped an average Joe walking down the street, and asked him "how long is a millennium?"
he would say something other than 1000 years? I mean, I seriously doubt he would say 2004 years, don't you? That is what I mean by common sense. I mean, really,
if I were giving a lecture of history, and I said something occured in the first millennium BC, would everyone in the room look at each other with puzzled faces
thinking "What does he mean?"
Ok, back on topic
[quote:62176855ca]
If you think that just because it says, "thousand years" common sense must dictate that it is a literal thoyusand years.
[/quote:62176855ca]
Yes.
[quote:62176855ca]
But let's follow this out: Does God own the cattle on a thousand hills? Guess that means that God doesn't own the 1001 cattle!
[/quote:62176855ca]
I've heard this one before. You are mixing apples and oranges (or, cattle and years). Let me ask you this:
Did God actually create the world in six days and rest the seventh? (Gen. 1)
Did God actually give men 120 years from Gen. 6:3 to the flood?
Was it actually 7 days from Gen. 7:4 until the rains began?
Did it actually rain for 40 days and 40 nights?
Did the waters actually prevail for 150 days? (Gen. 8:3)
Were the children of Israel in Egypt for 430 years (to the [b:62176855ca]day[/b:62176855ca])? (Exodus 12:40-41)
And the list goes on and on.
So, please show me where a time period is not actually the time God says it is. 1000 years means 1000 years. If you want to make it symbolic, then where does
your symbolism end? Also, I would ask, what happens to all the events in the Book of Revelation leading up to the 1000 years? When did they occur (remember, the book of Rev. talks about things which must shortly come to pass, which means that everything John saw [b:62176855ca]had not happened yet[/b:62176855ca]? Lastly, if the 1000 years is not literal, but in fact stretches from the first advent to the second advent, how do you deal with Rev. 20:3 - Satan being loosed. If he (satan)
was bound by Christ's birth (or resurrection, which ever you prefer), then how can he be un-bound? Is Christ's reusrrection made "null and void" for "a little while".
[quote:62176855ca]
I think "alarm" is a bit of an emotional word to use, don't you? Furthermore, you see it that way I see it as a "refinement" of the word. After all, a "definition" does not tell us anything about "meaning" all it is, really, is a history book. Dictionaries tell us how words have been used.
[/quote:62176855ca]
Maybe "alarm" is a bit emotional, but I think it is justified. Today, we have people redefining justification, defining covenant, redefining everything you can think of. Where does it end?
Dictionaries, today, tell us how words are used. This was not always the case. It used to be that dictionaries told us the proper use of a word. It is a matter of defining truth: Is it relative ("this is how do [b:62176855ca]you[/b:62176855ca] use this word"
or is it absolute ("the word has meaning and this is what that meaning is"? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I'll stick with absolute truth.
Having said all that, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not believe holding to your view of the millennium is heresy or will send you to hell. I mean, this is one of those topics, as Christians, we can sit back and discuss over a beer and not have to worry about the other's salvation in the back of our heads.
Looking forward to your reply!
No, we say that Christ will return after the millennium. The post is talking about second advent. So, we are consistant with that. You must be talking about timming.
[/quote:62176855ca]
But don't you see that you just proved that you are redefining terms? Im not talking about "post" I'm talking about "millennium". You do not believe in a
literal 1000 year millennium; therefore, you have redefined the term millennium.
[quote:62176855ca]
First, "common sense" does not "tell us" that it means a literal thousand years.
[/quote:62176855ca]
Ok, I have to stop you right there. Do you mean to tell me that if I stopped an average Joe walking down the street, and asked him "how long is a millennium?"
he would say something other than 1000 years? I mean, I seriously doubt he would say 2004 years, don't you? That is what I mean by common sense. I mean, really,
if I were giving a lecture of history, and I said something occured in the first millennium BC, would everyone in the room look at each other with puzzled faces
thinking "What does he mean?"
Ok, back on topic
[quote:62176855ca]
If you think that just because it says, "thousand years" common sense must dictate that it is a literal thoyusand years.
[/quote:62176855ca]
Yes.
[quote:62176855ca]
But let's follow this out: Does God own the cattle on a thousand hills? Guess that means that God doesn't own the 1001 cattle!
[/quote:62176855ca]
I've heard this one before. You are mixing apples and oranges (or, cattle and years). Let me ask you this:
Did God actually create the world in six days and rest the seventh? (Gen. 1)
Did God actually give men 120 years from Gen. 6:3 to the flood?
Was it actually 7 days from Gen. 7:4 until the rains began?
Did it actually rain for 40 days and 40 nights?
Did the waters actually prevail for 150 days? (Gen. 8:3)
Were the children of Israel in Egypt for 430 years (to the [b:62176855ca]day[/b:62176855ca])? (Exodus 12:40-41)
And the list goes on and on.
So, please show me where a time period is not actually the time God says it is. 1000 years means 1000 years. If you want to make it symbolic, then where does
your symbolism end? Also, I would ask, what happens to all the events in the Book of Revelation leading up to the 1000 years? When did they occur (remember, the book of Rev. talks about things which must shortly come to pass, which means that everything John saw [b:62176855ca]had not happened yet[/b:62176855ca]? Lastly, if the 1000 years is not literal, but in fact stretches from the first advent to the second advent, how do you deal with Rev. 20:3 - Satan being loosed. If he (satan)
was bound by Christ's birth (or resurrection, which ever you prefer), then how can he be un-bound? Is Christ's reusrrection made "null and void" for "a little while".
[quote:62176855ca]
I think "alarm" is a bit of an emotional word to use, don't you? Furthermore, you see it that way I see it as a "refinement" of the word. After all, a "definition" does not tell us anything about "meaning" all it is, really, is a history book. Dictionaries tell us how words have been used.
[/quote:62176855ca]
Maybe "alarm" is a bit emotional, but I think it is justified. Today, we have people redefining justification, defining covenant, redefining everything you can think of. Where does it end?
Dictionaries, today, tell us how words are used. This was not always the case. It used to be that dictionaries told us the proper use of a word. It is a matter of defining truth: Is it relative ("this is how do [b:62176855ca]you[/b:62176855ca] use this word"
or is it absolute ("the word has meaning and this is what that meaning is"? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I'll stick with absolute truth.Having said all that, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not believe holding to your view of the millennium is heresy or will send you to hell. I mean, this is one of those topics, as Christians, we can sit back and discuss over a beer and not have to worry about the other's salvation in the back of our heads.
Looking forward to your reply!
FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, so I'm in no place to discuss eschatology as I haven't studied it yet (it's on my list, don't worry) but as far as your years go, God says the Israelites will be in bondage for 400 years, not 430:
Genesis 15
13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years."
Does that mean God lied? No, but he was not being exact was he?
Just trying to make a side case that when he might mean 283 God may use 300 as a round number. And I'm talking about math, and God, so I will stop, because that's just weird.
Genesis 15
13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years."
Does that mean God lied? No, but he was not being exact was he?
Just trying to make a side case that when he might mean 283 God may use 300 as a round number. And I'm talking about math, and God, so I will stop, because that's just weird.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Literal millennium?
Revelation 20: 1-3:
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit[1] and a great [b:5d24d2451d]chain[/b:5d24d2451d]. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
So sastark, if Revelation 20 (and the millennium) is to be interpreted as a literal millennium, I have a question for you: what type of metal is this "literal" chain made of that will bind satan (who is spirit) for 1000 years? Steel? Titanium? How big will it be?
But surely, we must interpret this "chain" as a literal metal chain, though, since the average Joe would think of it as an actual metal "chain", right? Wrong. Context, context context!
Revelation 20: 1-3:
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit[1] and a great [b:5d24d2451d]chain[/b:5d24d2451d]. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
So sastark, if Revelation 20 (and the millennium) is to be interpreted as a literal millennium, I have a question for you: what type of metal is this "literal" chain made of that will bind satan (who is spirit) for 1000 years? Steel? Titanium? How big will it be?
But surely, we must interpret this "chain" as a literal metal chain, though, since the average Joe would think of it as an actual metal "chain", right? Wrong. Context, context context!
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
The Chain that binds Lucifer:
[quote:b36e72a006]
Steel? Titanium? How big will it be?
[/quote:b36e72a006]
Actually it is made of Adamant.
[quote:b36e72a006]
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In adamantine chains and penal fire,
Who durst defy th' Omnipotent to arms.
Nine times the space that measures day and night
To mortal men, he, with his horrid crew,
Lay vanquished, rolling in the fiery gulf,
Confounded, though immortal. But his doom
Reserved him to more wrath; for now the thought
Both of lost happiness and lasting pain
Torments him: round he throws his baleful eyes,
That witnessed huge affliction and dismay,
Mixed with obdurate pride and steadfast hate.
[/quote:b36e72a006]
Paradise Lost - Book I
[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Wintermute]
[quote:b36e72a006]
Steel? Titanium? How big will it be?
[/quote:b36e72a006]
Actually it is made of Adamant.
[quote:b36e72a006]
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In adamantine chains and penal fire,
Who durst defy th' Omnipotent to arms.
Nine times the space that measures day and night
To mortal men, he, with his horrid crew,
Lay vanquished, rolling in the fiery gulf,
Confounded, though immortal. But his doom
Reserved him to more wrath; for now the thought
Both of lost happiness and lasting pain
Torments him: round he throws his baleful eyes,
That witnessed huge affliction and dismay,
Mixed with obdurate pride and steadfast hate.
[/quote:b36e72a006]
Paradise Lost - Book I
[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Wintermute]
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Non-Literal Time references
Daniel 9:24:
24"Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Seth, here is your biblical example of a non-literal time reference. Weeks are not literal "weeks".
Daniel 9:24:
24"Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Seth, here is your biblical example of a non-literal time reference. Weeks are not literal "weeks".
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
[quote:149a16609e][i:149a16609e]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:149a16609e]
Paul:
2Ti 2:17-18
And their word will eat like a gangrene; among whom are Hymeneus and Philetus, who have erred concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past, and who overthrow the faith of some.
I do not see multiple Parousias in scripture. [/quote:149a16609e]
Preterism though is not simply about the Second Coming or whether Revelations is about 70 AD. Preterism is a hermaneutic that states that some things are past. For instance we are all preterists in regards to Christ's first advent. He did actually come and that was in the past.
Paul:
2Ti 2:17-18
And their word will eat like a gangrene; among whom are Hymeneus and Philetus, who have erred concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past, and who overthrow the faith of some.
I do not see multiple Parousias in scripture. [/quote:149a16609e]
Preterism though is not simply about the Second Coming or whether Revelations is about 70 AD. Preterism is a hermaneutic that states that some things are past. For instance we are all preterists in regards to Christ's first advent. He did actually come and that was in the past.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:a1a67abe6a][i:a1a67abe6a]Originally posted by KenKienow[/i:a1a67abe6a]
So sastark, if Revelation 20 (and the millennium) is to be interpreted as a literal millennium, I have a question for you: what type of metal is this "literal" chain made of that will bind satan (who is spirit) for 1000 years? Steel? Titanium? How big will it be?
But surely, we must interpret this "chain" as a literal metal chain, though, since the average Joe would think of it as an actual metal "chain", right? Wrong. Context, context context! [/quote:a1a67abe6a]
Please see my previous post to Paul. You are mixing chains and years.
So sastark, if Revelation 20 (and the millennium) is to be interpreted as a literal millennium, I have a question for you: what type of metal is this "literal" chain made of that will bind satan (who is spirit) for 1000 years? Steel? Titanium? How big will it be?
But surely, we must interpret this "chain" as a literal metal chain, though, since the average Joe would think of it as an actual metal "chain", right? Wrong. Context, context context! [/quote:a1a67abe6a]
Please see my previous post to Paul. You are mixing chains and years.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:0ca17a7c1e][i:0ca17a7c1e]Originally posted by KenKienow[/i:0ca17a7c1e]
Daniel 9:24:
24"Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Seth, here is your biblical example of a non-literal time reference. Weeks are not literal "weeks". [/quote:0ca17a7c1e]
Ken,
So, then, what time period does each year of the 1000 years in Rev. 20 represent? We know that each "day" of the "week" in Daniel's prophecies are actually one year. Does each day of the 1000-year millennium actually represent one year (making the millennium 365,000 years long?)
My point in asking this is: either the 1000 years are actually 1000 years OR they represent 1000 periods of time. I do not see Scriptural presedence for saying 1000 is an indefinite amount of time.
Daniel 9:24:
24"Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Seth, here is your biblical example of a non-literal time reference. Weeks are not literal "weeks". [/quote:0ca17a7c1e]
Ken,
So, then, what time period does each year of the 1000 years in Rev. 20 represent? We know that each "day" of the "week" in Daniel's prophecies are actually one year. Does each day of the 1000-year millennium actually represent one year (making the millennium 365,000 years long?)
My point in asking this is: either the 1000 years are actually 1000 years OR they represent 1000 periods of time. I do not see Scriptural presedence for saying 1000 is an indefinite amount of time.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:88ab36a53c][i:88ab36a53c]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:88ab36a53c]
Preterism though is not simply about the Second Coming or whether Revelations is about 70 AD. Preterism is a hermaneutic that states that some things are past. For instance we are all preterists in regards to Christ's first advent. He did actually come and that was in the past. [/quote:88ab36a53c]
Wayne, I agree. I am actually a preterist in the proper sense of the word, since I believe somethings prophisied have actually happened. However, today we have "preterists" who believe 99% of Rev. happened before or at 70 AD (the only thing left is Christ's Return). I'm not one of those. I'm a Jonthan Edwards-type postmillennialist.
Preterism though is not simply about the Second Coming or whether Revelations is about 70 AD. Preterism is a hermaneutic that states that some things are past. For instance we are all preterists in regards to Christ's first advent. He did actually come and that was in the past. [/quote:88ab36a53c]
Wayne, I agree. I am actually a preterist in the proper sense of the word, since I believe somethings prophisied have actually happened. However, today we have "preterists" who believe 99% of Rev. happened before or at 70 AD (the only thing left is Christ's Return). I'm not one of those. I'm a Jonthan Edwards-type postmillennialist.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:5c32e3e44a][i:5c32e3e44a]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:5c32e3e44a]
I do not see multiple Parousias in scripture. [/quote:5c32e3e44a]
Well, certainly we all speak of His first coming and His second coming. So there are two.
Orthodox preterists are in agreement with non-preterists that there is but one visible, second coming of Christ in bodily form at "the last day" ala WCF Chapters 32 & 33. Our issue is what prophecies were fulfilled in the past, especially in the 1st century up until AD70.
I hardly think that qualifies as a heresy.
I do not see multiple Parousias in scripture. [/quote:5c32e3e44a]
Well, certainly we all speak of His first coming and His second coming. So there are two.
Orthodox preterists are in agreement with non-preterists that there is but one visible, second coming of Christ in bodily form at "the last day" ala WCF Chapters 32 & 33. Our issue is what prophecies were fulfilled in the past, especially in the 1st century up until AD70.
I hardly think that qualifies as a heresy.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Mixing Chains and Years...
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "mixing chains and years" (even after reading your reply to Paul). If you mean that we can't assume figurative interpretation of a passage that includes obvious figurative interpretations, what justification can you give for that? What justification can be given for a literal interpretation of parts of Revelation 20, and a figurative interpretation of other parts? Literal time references in other books of the bible do not have much bearing on the literal/figurative interpretation of the millennium. I think Paul has a valid point on the "1001st hill" not belonging to God.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "mixing chains and years" (even after reading your reply to Paul). If you mean that we can't assume figurative interpretation of a passage that includes obvious figurative interpretations, what justification can you give for that? What justification can be given for a literal interpretation of parts of Revelation 20, and a figurative interpretation of other parts? Literal time references in other books of the bible do not have much bearing on the literal/figurative interpretation of the millennium. I think Paul has a valid point on the "1001st hill" not belonging to God.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:9eeb8b4477][i:9eeb8b4477]Originally posted by sastark[/i:9eeb8b4477]
However, today we have "preterists" who believe 99% of Rev. happened before or at 70 AD (the only thing left is Christ's Return). I'm not one of those. I'm a Jonthan Edwards-type postmillennialist. [/quote:9eeb8b4477]
Do you believe, like Edwards, that the millennium will begin in America? What are the characteristics of your (future?) millennium? How will you know when you are in it?
However, today we have "preterists" who believe 99% of Rev. happened before or at 70 AD (the only thing left is Christ's Return). I'm not one of those. I'm a Jonthan Edwards-type postmillennialist. [/quote:9eeb8b4477]
Do you believe, like Edwards, that the millennium will begin in America? What are the characteristics of your (future?) millennium? How will you know when you are in it?
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
"I've heard this one before. You are mixing apples and oranges (or, cattle and years). Let me ask you this:
Did God actually create the world in six days and rest the seventh? (Gen. 1)
Did God actually give men 120 years from Gen. 6:3 to the flood?
Was it actually 7 days from Gen. 7:4 until the rains began?
Did it actually rain for 40 days and 40 nights?
Did the waters actually prevail for 150 days? (Gen. 8:3)
Were the children of Israel in Egypt for 430 years (to the day)? (Exodus 12:40-41) "
Seth,
Do you really want to lump all genre of scripture together and interpret it the same way? That's what I feel this kind of intepretation leads to. It refuses to acknowledge the variety of genres in scripture which deserve their own form of interpretation. Prophetic scripture contains a lot of figurative language to deny that is in my opinion to deny the obvious. Is the beast a man, or a fantastic monster with multiple heads? Who is the harlot? The woman in the desert? If we are willing to interpret obvious prophetic pictures why are we so adamant about numbers?
Did God actually create the world in six days and rest the seventh? (Gen. 1)
Did God actually give men 120 years from Gen. 6:3 to the flood?
Was it actually 7 days from Gen. 7:4 until the rains began?
Did it actually rain for 40 days and 40 nights?
Did the waters actually prevail for 150 days? (Gen. 8:3)
Were the children of Israel in Egypt for 430 years (to the day)? (Exodus 12:40-41) "
Seth,
Do you really want to lump all genre of scripture together and interpret it the same way? That's what I feel this kind of intepretation leads to. It refuses to acknowledge the variety of genres in scripture which deserve their own form of interpretation. Prophetic scripture contains a lot of figurative language to deny that is in my opinion to deny the obvious. Is the beast a man, or a fantastic monster with multiple heads? Who is the harlot? The woman in the desert? If we are willing to interpret obvious prophetic pictures why are we so adamant about numbers?
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:d21f696d45][i:d21f696d45]Originally posted by KenKienow[/i:d21f696d45]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "mixing chains and years" (even after reading your reply to Paul). If you mean that we can't assume figurative interpretation of a passage that includes obvious figurative interpretations, what justification can you give for that? What justification can be given for a literal interpretation of parts of Revelation 20, and a figurative interpretation of other parts? Literal time references in other books of the bible do not have much bearing on the literal/figurative interpretation of the millennium. I think Paul has a valid point on the "1001st hill" not belonging to God. [/quote:d21f696d45]
By mixing "chains and years" I was referring to my early "mixing cattle and years".
It amazes me that one can look at all the time references in Scripture and say "Aha! This [b:d21f696d45]one[/b:d21f696d45] in Revelation is symbolic!". I mean, did you see all the verses I referred to in my previous post to Paul? I believe there were several passages that were prophesies (just like Revelation is a prophecy) that referred to specific periods of time. So, I have shown prophetic passages that refer to periods of time to support my literal, 1000 year millennium. What is your (meaning all pretereists) defense of a non-1000-year millennium? 1000 cattle. "Cattle"! Do you see why I don't think the cattle on a thousand hills argument is valid? I am looking at passages that deal with prophecy, you are looking at passages that deal with cows.
[quote:d21f696d45]
Literal time references in other books of the bible do not have much bearing on the literal/figurative interpretation of the millennium.[/quote:d21f696d45]
Why not? Why does Revelation not get inturpretted in light of the rest of Scripture? These are not rhetorical questions (ok, maybe they are a little), but things to really think about.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "mixing chains and years" (even after reading your reply to Paul). If you mean that we can't assume figurative interpretation of a passage that includes obvious figurative interpretations, what justification can you give for that? What justification can be given for a literal interpretation of parts of Revelation 20, and a figurative interpretation of other parts? Literal time references in other books of the bible do not have much bearing on the literal/figurative interpretation of the millennium. I think Paul has a valid point on the "1001st hill" not belonging to God. [/quote:d21f696d45]
By mixing "chains and years" I was referring to my early "mixing cattle and years".
It amazes me that one can look at all the time references in Scripture and say "Aha! This [b:d21f696d45]one[/b:d21f696d45] in Revelation is symbolic!". I mean, did you see all the verses I referred to in my previous post to Paul? I believe there were several passages that were prophesies (just like Revelation is a prophecy) that referred to specific periods of time. So, I have shown prophetic passages that refer to periods of time to support my literal, 1000 year millennium. What is your (meaning all pretereists) defense of a non-1000-year millennium? 1000 cattle. "Cattle"! Do you see why I don't think the cattle on a thousand hills argument is valid? I am looking at passages that deal with prophecy, you are looking at passages that deal with cows.
[quote:d21f696d45]
Literal time references in other books of the bible do not have much bearing on the literal/figurative interpretation of the millennium.[/quote:d21f696d45]
Why not? Why does Revelation not get inturpretted in light of the rest of Scripture? These are not rhetorical questions (ok, maybe they are a little), but things to really think about.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:d6b988df14][i:d6b988df14]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:d6b988df14]
Seth,
Do you really want to lump all genre of scripture together and interpret it the same way? That's what I feel this kind of intepretation leads to. It refuses to acknowledge the variety of genres in scripture which deserve their own form of interpretation. Prophetic scripture contains a lot of figurative language to deny that is in my opinion to deny the obvious. Is the beast a man, or a fantastic monster with multiple heads? Who is the harlot? The woman in the desert? If we are willing to interpret obvious prophetic pictures why are we so adamant about numbers? [/quote:d6b988df14]
Ian,
I think that prophectic passages must be interpretted by Scripture (which I know we agree on). So, when I come to a prophectic time period (1,000 years), then it follows that I should look for other prophetic time periods to find the meaning of 1000 years. After doing so, I can see only one of two conclusions: Either 1000 years really is 1000 years (just like all those prophecies God made in Gen. that I quoted) OR the 1000 years actually represents 1000 periods of time (like Daniel's 70 weeks were not actually weeks of days, but weeks of years). I do [b:d6b988df14]not[/b:d6b988df14] see scriptural justification for saying 1000 years is an indefinite period of time between the 1st and 2nd advents.
Seth,
Do you really want to lump all genre of scripture together and interpret it the same way? That's what I feel this kind of intepretation leads to. It refuses to acknowledge the variety of genres in scripture which deserve their own form of interpretation. Prophetic scripture contains a lot of figurative language to deny that is in my opinion to deny the obvious. Is the beast a man, or a fantastic monster with multiple heads? Who is the harlot? The woman in the desert? If we are willing to interpret obvious prophetic pictures why are we so adamant about numbers? [/quote:d6b988df14]
Ian,
I think that prophectic passages must be interpretted by Scripture (which I know we agree on). So, when I come to a prophectic time period (1,000 years), then it follows that I should look for other prophetic time periods to find the meaning of 1000 years. After doing so, I can see only one of two conclusions: Either 1000 years really is 1000 years (just like all those prophecies God made in Gen. that I quoted) OR the 1000 years actually represents 1000 periods of time (like Daniel's 70 weeks were not actually weeks of days, but weeks of years). I do [b:d6b988df14]not[/b:d6b988df14] see scriptural justification for saying 1000 years is an indefinite period of time between the 1st and 2nd advents.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, we are to interpret scripture with scripture. But we are not to interpret scripture [i:2da85d031e]in the same way[/i:2da85d031e] as other scripture. Read Ianterrell's post. You're mixing scripture genres.
And likewise, Seth, it amazes me that you can look at all the [b:2da85d031e]figurative[/b:2da85d031e] verses in scripture and say, "Aha! The millennium is a literal 1000 years!" See, your argument goes both ways. We need to keep scripture genre, purpose, and context in mind when interpreting verses.
The 1000 hills reference is by no means the only support. It is only another example of figurative interpretation of the Word of God. The hard evidence is the context of the passage. [b:2da85d031e]If[/b:2da85d031e] the millennium reference was not encircled by figurative language and images, I can assure you that most people would hold to a literal interpretion. This is not the case, though.
And likewise, Seth, it amazes me that you can look at all the [b:2da85d031e]figurative[/b:2da85d031e] verses in scripture and say, "Aha! The millennium is a literal 1000 years!" See, your argument goes both ways. We need to keep scripture genre, purpose, and context in mind when interpreting verses.
The 1000 hills reference is by no means the only support. It is only another example of figurative interpretation of the Word of God. The hard evidence is the context of the passage. [b:2da85d031e]If[/b:2da85d031e] the millennium reference was not encircled by figurative language and images, I can assure you that most people would hold to a literal interpretion. This is not the case, though.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:7b411a4dd7][i:7b411a4dd7]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:7b411a4dd7]
[quote:7b411a4dd7]
Well, certainly we all speak of His first coming and His second coming. So there are two.
[/quote:7b411a4dd7]
Multiple second comings ? ? no.
[/quote:7b411a4dd7]
That's not what you said originally. I was just picking. :bs2:
[quote:7b411a4dd7]
There was a first advent, and there will be a second and final advent. [/quote:7b411a4dd7]
Even a dispensationalist would not argue with that.
But preterists wrestle with verses like, "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, ..." Some folks leap to the conclusion that this is speaking of Christ's second coming, but the text does not automatically lend itself to that conclusion. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus repeatedly quotes OT prophecies of destruction that do not include the physical, bodily appearance of Christ.
[quote:7b411a4dd7]
Well, certainly we all speak of His first coming and His second coming. So there are two.
[/quote:7b411a4dd7]
Multiple second comings ? ? no.
[/quote:7b411a4dd7]
That's not what you said originally. I was just picking. :bs2:
[quote:7b411a4dd7]
There was a first advent, and there will be a second and final advent. [/quote:7b411a4dd7]
Even a dispensationalist would not argue with that.
But preterists wrestle with verses like, "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, ..." Some folks leap to the conclusion that this is speaking of Christ's second coming, but the text does not automatically lend itself to that conclusion. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus repeatedly quotes OT prophecies of destruction that do not include the physical, bodily appearance of Christ.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:604c1e63ab][i:604c1e63ab]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:604c1e63ab]
Do you believe, like Edwards, that the millennium will begin in America? What are the characteristics of your (future?) millennium? How will you know when you are in it? [/quote:604c1e63ab]
Tom,
I am unfamiliar with Edwards' claims that the millennium will begin in America. I do remember him writing something along the lines of America having great potential as a christian land (which, for a while it was). If you can give me a reference, I'd be glad to look into it more.
As for knowing when the millennium will be here, there are three classic marks: 1) The fall of Antichrist, 2) The conversion of the Jews 3) The gospel preached to all nations (or the fullness of the gentiles). (I did that from memory, so I hope I got it right!)
Do you believe, like Edwards, that the millennium will begin in America? What are the characteristics of your (future?) millennium? How will you know when you are in it? [/quote:604c1e63ab]
Tom,
I am unfamiliar with Edwards' claims that the millennium will begin in America. I do remember him writing something along the lines of America having great potential as a christian land (which, for a while it was). If you can give me a reference, I'd be glad to look into it more.
As for knowing when the millennium will be here, there are three classic marks: 1) The fall of Antichrist, 2) The conversion of the Jews 3) The gospel preached to all nations (or the fullness of the gentiles). (I did that from memory, so I hope I got it right!)
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:111501da0c]
But preterists wrestle with verses like, "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, ..." Some folks leap to the conclusion that this is speaking of Christ's second coming, but the text does not automatically lend itself to that conclusion. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus repeatedly quotes OT prophecies of destruction that do not include the physical, bodily appearance of Christ.
[/quote:111501da0c]
The apocalypse is an unveiling or revealing of Christ and His work. It is the liturgy of heaven. We are allowed to look behind the veil and see what John sees. We see the worship of the Lamb, and the unfolding of His providential work of building His kingdom.
These things, and the so called difficult passages like the one you listed above transcend time.
[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Wintermute]
But preterists wrestle with verses like, "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, ..." Some folks leap to the conclusion that this is speaking of Christ's second coming, but the text does not automatically lend itself to that conclusion. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus repeatedly quotes OT prophecies of destruction that do not include the physical, bodily appearance of Christ.
[/quote:111501da0c]
The apocalypse is an unveiling or revealing of Christ and His work. It is the liturgy of heaven. We are allowed to look behind the veil and see what John sees. We see the worship of the Lamb, and the unfolding of His providential work of building His kingdom.
These things, and the so called difficult passages like the one you listed above transcend time.
[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Wintermute]
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:0d10e29d75][i:0d10e29d75]Originally posted by KenKienow[/i:0d10e29d75]
You're mixing scripture genres.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
I'm not trying to be mean (in anything I say, not just this reply), but honestly asking: How can comparing prophecy to prophecy be mixing genres?
[quote:0d10e29d75]
And likewise, Seth, it amazes me that you can look at all the [b:0d10e29d75]figurative[/b:0d10e29d75] verses in scripture and say, "Aha! The millennium is a literal 1000 years!" See, your argument goes both ways. We need to keep scripture genre, purpose, and context in mind when interpreting verses.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
But prophetic time periods are always definite periods of time. Why should the 1000 years be any different? Because Revelation is symbolic? So was Daniel's 70 weeks of years, but it was still a definite period of time. I ask again, how long is the millennium if it is not 1000 years? Is it 1000-years of years (in stead of days)? Do you really think it will be 365,000 years long? Do is it an indifinite period of time? And, if so, how can you justify that interpretation from Scripture?
[quote:0d10e29d75]
The 1000 hills reference is by no means the only support. It is only another example of figurative interpretation of the Word of God. The hard evidence is the context of the passage.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
So, what is symbolic about Satan not deceiving the nations for the period of his binding? What is symbolic about him being released for "a little while"?
[quote:0d10e29d75]
[b:0d10e29d75]If[/b:0d10e29d75] the millennium reference was not encircled by figurative language and images, I can assure you that most people would hold to a literal interpretion. This is not the case, though.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
I don't think a majority can be appealed to here (theology is not democratic), but if we did, I think you are wrong. A majority of Christians actually do hold to a literal 1000-year millennium, they just have Christ returning before it, and the whole rapture, tribulation thing thrown in there some where. But, like I said, I don't think appealing to a majority is correct.
You're mixing scripture genres.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
I'm not trying to be mean (in anything I say, not just this reply), but honestly asking: How can comparing prophecy to prophecy be mixing genres?
[quote:0d10e29d75]
And likewise, Seth, it amazes me that you can look at all the [b:0d10e29d75]figurative[/b:0d10e29d75] verses in scripture and say, "Aha! The millennium is a literal 1000 years!" See, your argument goes both ways. We need to keep scripture genre, purpose, and context in mind when interpreting verses.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
But prophetic time periods are always definite periods of time. Why should the 1000 years be any different? Because Revelation is symbolic? So was Daniel's 70 weeks of years, but it was still a definite period of time. I ask again, how long is the millennium if it is not 1000 years? Is it 1000-years of years (in stead of days)? Do you really think it will be 365,000 years long? Do is it an indifinite period of time? And, if so, how can you justify that interpretation from Scripture?
[quote:0d10e29d75]
The 1000 hills reference is by no means the only support. It is only another example of figurative interpretation of the Word of God. The hard evidence is the context of the passage.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
So, what is symbolic about Satan not deceiving the nations for the period of his binding? What is symbolic about him being released for "a little while"?
[quote:0d10e29d75]
[b:0d10e29d75]If[/b:0d10e29d75] the millennium reference was not encircled by figurative language and images, I can assure you that most people would hold to a literal interpretion. This is not the case, though.
[/quote:0d10e29d75]
I don't think a majority can be appealed to here (theology is not democratic), but if we did, I think you are wrong. A majority of Christians actually do hold to a literal 1000-year millennium, they just have Christ returning before it, and the whole rapture, tribulation thing thrown in there some where. But, like I said, I don't think appealing to a majority is correct.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:3506f40777][i:3506f40777]Originally posted by sastark[/i:3506f40777]
[quote:3506f40777][i:3506f40777]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:3506f40777]
Do you believe, like Edwards, that the millennium will begin in America? What are the characteristics of your (future?) millennium? How will you know when you are in it? [/quote:3506f40777]
Tom,
I am unfamiliar with Edwards' claims that the millennium will begin in America. I do remember him writing something along the lines of America having great potential as a christian land (which, for a while it was). If you can give me a reference, I'd be glad to look into it more.
[/quote:3506f40777]
Perhaps "begin in America" was a bit strong. But Edwards certainly taught that revival in America/the new world was the precursor to the millennium.
Which I think points out one of the difficulties in defining the millennium as anything other than the time period between the 1st and 2nd advents. Because of historical moods swing you never really know where you are. Things always look better or worse (depending on your mood) than they did 100 or 500 years ago.
[quote:3506f40777]
As for knowing when the millennium will be here, there are three classic marks: 1) The fall of Antichrist, 2) The conversion of the Jews 3) The gospel preached to all nations (or the fullness of the gentiles). (I did that from memory, so I hope I got it right!) [/quote:3506f40777]
If you can identify the antichrist biblically as a person, then presumably you can figure out number 1. I think the identification of antichrist with the Roman papacy suffers from numerous problem. For one thing it suffers from the same problem described above, namely, historical moods swings. One might argue today that Louisville, KY (home of the PCUSA) is more the home of antichrist than Vatican City.
Numbers 2 and 3 have been true since the 1st century. In fact I would argue that it is more difficult to quantify number 2 today than 2000 years ago.
The only characteristics of the millennium given in the Bible are 1) the binding of Satan and 2) the reign of Christ and His saints. Both of those two characteristics have been true (objectively, biblically verifiable) since Christ's first advent.
[quote:3506f40777][i:3506f40777]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:3506f40777]
Do you believe, like Edwards, that the millennium will begin in America? What are the characteristics of your (future?) millennium? How will you know when you are in it? [/quote:3506f40777]
Tom,
I am unfamiliar with Edwards' claims that the millennium will begin in America. I do remember him writing something along the lines of America having great potential as a christian land (which, for a while it was). If you can give me a reference, I'd be glad to look into it more.
[/quote:3506f40777]
Perhaps "begin in America" was a bit strong. But Edwards certainly taught that revival in America/the new world was the precursor to the millennium.
Which I think points out one of the difficulties in defining the millennium as anything other than the time period between the 1st and 2nd advents. Because of historical moods swing you never really know where you are. Things always look better or worse (depending on your mood) than they did 100 or 500 years ago.
[quote:3506f40777]
As for knowing when the millennium will be here, there are three classic marks: 1) The fall of Antichrist, 2) The conversion of the Jews 3) The gospel preached to all nations (or the fullness of the gentiles). (I did that from memory, so I hope I got it right!) [/quote:3506f40777]
If you can identify the antichrist biblically as a person, then presumably you can figure out number 1. I think the identification of antichrist with the Roman papacy suffers from numerous problem. For one thing it suffers from the same problem described above, namely, historical moods swings. One might argue today that Louisville, KY (home of the PCUSA) is more the home of antichrist than Vatican City.
Numbers 2 and 3 have been true since the 1st century. In fact I would argue that it is more difficult to quantify number 2 today than 2000 years ago.
The only characteristics of the millennium given in the Bible are 1) the binding of Satan and 2) the reign of Christ and His saints. Both of those two characteristics have been true (objectively, biblically verifiable) since Christ's first advent.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:ca2c5be3f0][i:ca2c5be3f0]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:ca2c5be3f0]
Perhaps "begin in America" was a bit strong. But Edwards certainly taught that revival in America/the new world was the precursor to the millennium.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
Well, as a postmillennialist, I certainly would agree that we will see revival in the U.S. before the beginning of the millennium. (Heck, we just need revival, period!)
[quote:ca2c5be3f0]
If you can identify the antichrist biblically as a person, then presumably you can figure out number 1. I think the identification of antichrist with the Roman papacy suffers from numerous problem. For one thing it suffers from the same problem described above, namely, historical moods swings. One might argue today that Louisville, KY (home of the PCUSA) is more the home of antichrist than Vatican City.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
Personally, I do indetify the office of the pope as the office of antichrist. Thankfully, I've got the WCF backing me up on that one. Now, as for "hisortical moodswings" (a great term by the way), I disagree. At least as it applies to the antichrist. Here's why: for a long time, the antichrist had not been revealed, so, of course people weren't running around saying "The Pope is the Antichrist" when there was no pope, and then once there was a pope, when he had not fully revealed himself to be antichrist, people weren't saying the pope is antichrist. Once that was made clear (that the pope is antichrist); however, people starting saying the pope is the antichrist. And that has continued until today. It's true that it is no longer the majority view, but it is still said today and the pope still has all the marks of the antichrist and man of sin.
PCUSA - Haha! Well, if Louisville had been built on seven hills, you might be on to something.
[quote:ca2c5be3f0]
Numbers 2 and 3 have been true since the 1st century. In fact I would argue that it is more difficult to quantify number 2 today than 2000 years ago.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
There are about 2 million Jews in Israel who would argue differently. I do not think we can say the Jews have been converted (en mass), since the Jewish religion (which I realize is much different from OT worship) still exists. If I can offer a parallel example: No one worships Odin today. That's becuase the Germans/Scandanvians were evangelized. This is what I mean by the "conversion" of the Jews.
[quote:ca2c5be3f0]
The only characteristics of the millennium given in the Bible are 1) the binding of Satan and 2) the reign of Christ and His saints. Both of those two characteristics have been true (objectively, biblically verifiable) since Christ's first advent.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
If both of those have been true since since Christ's first advent, then why do we consider Revelation prophecy? I mean, doesn't prophecy mean something that is yet to happen? If John wrote in 90-something AD, (that date ought to catch a few preterists eyes), then this whole binding of Satan would have already occured. How does that figure?
Perhaps "begin in America" was a bit strong. But Edwards certainly taught that revival in America/the new world was the precursor to the millennium.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
Well, as a postmillennialist, I certainly would agree that we will see revival in the U.S. before the beginning of the millennium. (Heck, we just need revival, period!)
[quote:ca2c5be3f0]
If you can identify the antichrist biblically as a person, then presumably you can figure out number 1. I think the identification of antichrist with the Roman papacy suffers from numerous problem. For one thing it suffers from the same problem described above, namely, historical moods swings. One might argue today that Louisville, KY (home of the PCUSA) is more the home of antichrist than Vatican City.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
Personally, I do indetify the office of the pope as the office of antichrist. Thankfully, I've got the WCF backing me up on that one. Now, as for "hisortical moodswings" (a great term by the way), I disagree. At least as it applies to the antichrist. Here's why: for a long time, the antichrist had not been revealed, so, of course people weren't running around saying "The Pope is the Antichrist" when there was no pope, and then once there was a pope, when he had not fully revealed himself to be antichrist, people weren't saying the pope is antichrist. Once that was made clear (that the pope is antichrist); however, people starting saying the pope is the antichrist. And that has continued until today. It's true that it is no longer the majority view, but it is still said today and the pope still has all the marks of the antichrist and man of sin.
PCUSA - Haha! Well, if Louisville had been built on seven hills, you might be on to something.
[quote:ca2c5be3f0]
Numbers 2 and 3 have been true since the 1st century. In fact I would argue that it is more difficult to quantify number 2 today than 2000 years ago.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
There are about 2 million Jews in Israel who would argue differently. I do not think we can say the Jews have been converted (en mass), since the Jewish religion (which I realize is much different from OT worship) still exists. If I can offer a parallel example: No one worships Odin today. That's becuase the Germans/Scandanvians were evangelized. This is what I mean by the "conversion" of the Jews.
[quote:ca2c5be3f0]
The only characteristics of the millennium given in the Bible are 1) the binding of Satan and 2) the reign of Christ and His saints. Both of those two characteristics have been true (objectively, biblically verifiable) since Christ's first advent.
[/quote:ca2c5be3f0]
If both of those have been true since since Christ's first advent, then why do we consider Revelation prophecy? I mean, doesn't prophecy mean something that is yet to happen? If John wrote in 90-something AD, (that date ought to catch a few preterists eyes), then this whole binding of Satan would have already occured. How does that figure?
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Paul,
I've got twenty minutes before my weekend starts, and I usually do not check the board on the weekends, so a complete reply to your reply to my reply will have to wait til Tuesday.
But, in the mean time, let me ask you a question or two:
When did the millennium begin? Was it at Christ's birth? His Death? His resurrection? Or at the destruction of Jerusalem?
If it began at any time other than the destruction of Jerusalem, then John was not writing about things that must shortly come to pass (and since the date of John's writing is questionable and most likely post-70 AD, even the destruction of Jerusalem was most likely a past event), since Christ's birth, death, and reusrrection had already occured.
If the millennium did begin in 70 AD, then when did all the other things in Rev. happen? Again, remember, they would all have to happen between John writing Revelation and 70 AD, since they were all soon to come. In other words, all of Rev. had to happen after John writing, since they were all [b:e0b1ce7b5c]future events[/b:e0b1ce7b5c].
Have a great weekend!
I've got twenty minutes before my weekend starts, and I usually do not check the board on the weekends, so a complete reply to your reply to my reply will have to wait til Tuesday.
But, in the mean time, let me ask you a question or two:
When did the millennium begin? Was it at Christ's birth? His Death? His resurrection? Or at the destruction of Jerusalem?
If it began at any time other than the destruction of Jerusalem, then John was not writing about things that must shortly come to pass (and since the date of John's writing is questionable and most likely post-70 AD, even the destruction of Jerusalem was most likely a past event), since Christ's birth, death, and reusrrection had already occured.
If the millennium did begin in 70 AD, then when did all the other things in Rev. happen? Again, remember, they would all have to happen between John writing Revelation and 70 AD, since they were all soon to come. In other words, all of Rev. had to happen after John writing, since they were all [b:e0b1ce7b5c]future events[/b:e0b1ce7b5c].
Have a great weekend!
- Status
