what is the "all" in Col. 1:20

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:940fc9d61a][i:940fc9d61a]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:940fc9d61a]

This Amil version of victory reminds me of the foot ball team who lost according to the score board but whose coach tells you guys are winners in my books because you tried your best... the Amil presents Christ's people as the ones trying their best but losing in the score board the post mill presents the church as the ones doing the stumping... now I ask you which one portrays the Christ as truly victorious in the battle for history, only if you qualify victory to mean "try your best" can we consider the Amil as presenting a victorious Christ of history...

I guess it all goes back to our definition of victory... is Christ the savior of every realm or only the spritual realm. Post mil say every realm including the spiritual and physical the Amil say the spritual realm only.

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:940fc9d61a]

Tert, can you go back to my post's and show me where I have said that the optimistic Amil view is that we will "try our best"?

You are debating the wrong Amil position and in this case are taring down a strawman, your arguments would work very well with a pessemistic Amil and I would stand with you in that warfront.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]:amen:

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]
 
Roldan:

I am currently a Realized Millenialist (aka. Amillenialist) but I must say everything I have read of the PostMil position has me stumped.

I am seriously almost converted.
Have you read any of Bahnsen's FREE articles on http://www.cmfnow.com ??

Also, the Matthew 24/70 A.D. fulfillment had me thinking differently about the "Last Days".

Do you think the amillennial viewpoint leads to Neo-gnosticism ? ? (ie. Separating the Physical and the Spiritual into a false dichotomy)
 
[quote:b8b687939c][i:b8b687939c]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:b8b687939c]
Roldan:

I am currently a Realized Millenialist (aka. Amillenialist) but I must say everything I have read of the PostMil position has me stumped.

I am seriously almost converted.
Have you read any of Bahnsen's FREE articles on http://www.cmfnow.com ??

Also, the Matthew 24/70 A.D. fulfillment had me thinking differently about the "Last Days".

Do you think the amillennial viewpoint leads to Neo-gnosticism ? ? (ie. Separating the Physical and the Spiritual into a false dichotomy) [/quote:b8b687939c]

What has you stumped?

Yes I have read Bahnsen, Warfield, Boetner, Rushdooney, Kik, Gentry Jr., etc... and even though they differ on some points their main thrusts are basically the same and in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of others Realizers, it is unconvincing and under the scrutiny of scripture is found wanting. Have you read "The Time is at Hand" by Jay Adams? It is an optimistic approach to the Amil position and is devestating to the post and the pre viewpoints but he does focus more on the Pre for the post use almost the same arguments as them to predict some utopian manifestation BEFORE the parousia.

Concerning Matt. 24/70 a.d. I also take a Preterist viewpoint and does not harm the "optimistic" Amil position. Adams is also preterist.

Neo-gnosticism? of cours not. Would you agree with the dispensationalist who consider Post-mil gnostics? There are various prophecies that are not considered physical but spiritual by the postmil camp, would that put them under the umbrella of neo-gnosticism as well?

Do not be discouraged, our Hope is in the return of Christ not on a return of an imperfect garden of eden.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]
 
How do the dispensationalists call PostMils gnostic ? ?

Here is waht has me stumped:

[quote:a1586e7f74]

The inward reign of the Savior must become manifest in public righteousness: genuine hearing of the word, genuine religion, and genuine faith are seen in faithful doing of the law, outward helping of the oppressed, and practical aid to the afflicted (James 1:22-2:26). To restrict the reign of Christ to inward matters is to lose touch with the true character of submission to the King.

We must admit, therefore, that the kingdom of Christ is not merely internal and other-worldly. It has external expression on earth at the present time. "The kingdom of God and His righteousness" makes provision for every detail of life (Matt. 6:31-33). It is, as Paul taught, "profitable for all things, holding promise for the life that now is, as well as for that which is to come" (I Timothy 4:8). In a famous kingdom-parable, Christ authoritatively explained that the field (the kingdom) is the world (Matt. 13:38). In the perspective of Scripture, God's redeemed kingdom of priests - the church (I Peter 2:9) - presently "reigns upon the earth" (Revelation 5:9). Our confidence, calling, and prospect is encapsuled in the wonderful song, that "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15). The Messianic kingdom must be seen, then, as this-worldly, external, and visible - not merely internal to man's heart and other-worldly.

Greg Bahnsen
[/quote:a1586e7f74]

The Amil view seems pacifistic and unconcerned with the world when compared to this view.

Does the Optimistic approach of Adams deal with this ? ?


P.S. One element I find troubling with all views is their arbitrary interpretations of certain prophecies being translated spiritually or literally, in order to prove their position. I would like to have an eschatology that is multi-perspectival in the Poythresian sense.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Wintermute]
 
[quote:db20613d45][i:db20613d45]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:db20613d45]
How do the dispensationalists call PostMils gnostic ? ?

Here is waht has me stumped:

[quote:db20613d45]

The inward reign of the Savior must become manifest in public righteousness: genuine hearing of the word, genuine religion, and genuine faith are seen in faithful doing of the law, outward helping of the oppressed, and practical aid to the afflicted (James 1:22-2:26). To restrict the reign of Christ to inward matters is to lose touch with the true character of submission to the King.

We must admit, therefore, that the kingdom of Christ is not merely internal and other-worldly. It has external expression on earth at the present time. "The kingdom of God and His righteousness" makes provision for every detail of life (Matt. 6:31-33). It is, as Paul taught, "profitable for all things, holding promise for the life that now is, as well as for that which is to come" (I Timothy 4:8). In a famous kingdom-parable, Christ authoritatively explained that the field (the kingdom) is the world (Matt. 13:38). In the perspective of Scripture, God's redeemed kingdom of priests - the church (I Peter 2:9) - presently "reigns upon the earth" (Revelation 5:9). Our confidence, calling, and prospect is encapsuled in the wonderful song, that "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15). The Messianic kingdom must be seen, then, as this-worldly, external, and visible - not merely internal to man's heart and other-worldly.

Greg Bahnsen
[/quote:db20613d45]

The Amil view seems pacifistic and unconcerned with the world when compared to this view.

Does the Optimistic approach of Adams deal with this ? ? [/quote:db20613d45]

The pessemistic Amil view "seems" pacifistic.

Adams absolutely deals with it. I agreed with everything that bahnsen said except for his Theonomic tendencies in that article but that does not entail a "golden age utopia". Thats our point.

Before you jump ship I suggest you read the optimistic approach first then make a change or not, preferable not.LOL!

I understand that you are coming from a "pessemistic" amil viewpoint and Bahnsen's critique is devestating but his critique is uneffectual to the optimism of our view.

Grace and Peace, Roldan

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]
 
Eze 36:33 - 37

Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause [you] to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.
And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by.
And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities [are become] fenced, [and] are inhabited.
Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined [places, and] plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken [it], and I will do [it].
E Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet [for] this be enquired of by the house of Israel, to do [it] for them; I will increase them with men like a flock.



How do you interpret this and the "Sit at my right hand UNTIL, I make thine enemies a footstool" passages ? ?

In the PostMil view it seems like the gospel succeeds, and in the other views it fails miserable.
 
Paul, yo da man! I love that fact that you can put aside our alliance on other doctrines and come out gunz blazing:gunfire: when you are in disagreement.

But I have to go teach the youth now (scary) and will be back tonight to do this :tank:

peace:handshake:

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]
 
Paul:

How do you interpret this passage.

Luk 18:7,8 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

It does not sound too Postmillenial to me.
I am open to hearing what Posties say about it.
 
2Pe 3:4
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

This verse seems to indicate scoffers will "see" no obvious golden age around them. Unless a man is born again he cannot "See" the kingdom of God.

Also your verses do not answer my question, note:

[quote:f3a589d864]

Revelation 20:

7 And when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 and shall come forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 [b:f3a589d864]And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them.[/b:f3a589d864]
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire.
15 And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.


[/quote:f3a589d864]

The portion I posted in bold shows that there is a "faith" on the earth at this time.


Also, do not the Parables of Matthew 25 argue for a more Amil position ? ? ?


I think Isa. 65 and Ezekiel 36 can be translated in light of an Amil position as well.
All progress in science can be traced back to Christian influence. Every doctor has to borrow from a Christian worldview in order to carry out their duty.

So in that sense, sans natural accidents. We usually think of those who live short lives due to health as "accursed".

Then take Christ's statements like this into context as well:

[quote:f3a589d864]
Luk 13:1-3
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
[/quote:f3a589d864]

Just seeking for lucidity. The Postmil position is appealing.
I just need to see it in Scripture more clearly.
 
Paul ( and other post millas ),

im new to this, so what you wrote caught my attention..


[quote:b874d5df03]
So, when Jesus returns it is AFTER the millennium. After the glorius millennium the nations will be deceived, i.e., a great apostasy.
[/quote:b874d5df03]

So, let me get this straight...

NOW the nations are decieved, then(in the millenuim) they will not be decieved, but then again the nations become decieved?:puzzled:
 
So Postmil can be summed up in a timeline as:


[quote:62272802e3]
Unknown beginning of 1000 Golden Age Of Revival (literal or figurative)

Satan Bound during that era from "deceiving" whole nations at a time.

A great apostasy when Satan is loosed for a final rebellion.

The glorious return of Christ to consign His enemies to hell forever.
[/quote:62272802e3]


My understanding of Amil:

[quote:62272802e3]

Satan is bound and millenial reign is the Present Church Age.

Apostasy abounds. The Gospel is spreading like hidden leaven. Only those who are born again can see it.

A final apostasy culminates in the loosing of Satan.

The glorious return of Christ to consign His enemies to hell forever.

[/quote:62272802e3]


Amils are postmil in that they believe Christ returns at the end of the millenial reign. But I think you are right. To say they are optimistic is silly. That optimism is exactly what sets the Postmil position apart from them.
 
As agent Mulder's poster says: "I Want To Believe."

What about all the doom and gloom passages of a persecuted Church ? ? ?
 
Explain what this means:


[quote:543d921c3a]
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
[/quote:543d921c3a]

I cannot get the crazy dispensational interpretation out of my mind.

What is the 1st and 2nd resurrection ? ? ?


Does the term [i:543d921c3a]hoi loipoi ton nekron[/i:543d921c3a] imply martyrs get a special status and resurrection ? ?


Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Wintermute]
 
[quote:63989c8f73] I cannot get the crazy dispensational interpretation out of my mind.

What is the 1st and 2nd resurrection ? ? ? [/quote:63989c8f73]

Paul's response was beautiful but I just also want to point out that this interpretation that Paul gace from my perspective is the only one that can do full justice to this passage as a whole. The Amil position is forced to chop this passage up when they deal with that must just stay away from it and say that it is to difficult to touch until after we have looked at the "pessimistic" bible passages about the persecuted church that they allege prove God orphaned His Church in a big bad cruel world once they have established that the church will be hopelessly defeated they glaze right over this passage saying what it cannot mean and then saying that is why we have to read it like it is contradictory and then conjecture that it is talking about two different things at once, namely the saints triumphant reign in heaven and Satan's triumphant reign on earth. Yet the Amil is basically asking us to throw out the part about Satan gathering an army and attacking the triumphant Saints for how in the world is Satan going to fight people in Heaven? The Postmil on the other hand by showing that the victory of the Saints takes place on earth for first the gentiles are regenerated (First resurrection) binding Satan's authority on the earth which at one time reigned from sea to sea except for Israel but now God's kingdom liberates all nations not just Israel. Then after the Gospel has completed its task of gathering the elect and transforming this world (ex. politics, war, poverty) with all the power that we would expect from a Gospel of God! Satan will be the one gathering his few remnant to wage war- yes it will be Satan not Christ who is left with the remnant... and then Christ will come and destroy Satan at the second resurrection... even so come lord come.

This Postmil interpretation is far superior to either the Dispensational interpretation which though correctly views the whole passage on earth cannot explain how physically resurrected Saints live for a thousand years with death and decay around them from their unregenerate unresurrected pagan neighbors. Postmil thus solves the Amils and Disp problems.


[quote:63989c8f73] Does the term hoi loipoi ton nekron imply martyrs get a special status and resurrection ? ?

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [/quote:63989c8f73]

A second what Paul said in his last post- God adds grace to grace.

What we do here on earth matters... if we are martyred for Christ will God forget our death or will he not punish our the enemies of the cross... Rome where are you? The people you persecuted are still around... what shall we say but echo the wise words of Saul's teacher Gamaliel "If the [Christian] origin is of men, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men, you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:39) With verses like these I wonder how people can be pessimistic about Christ liberating abilites... why is the Gospel of human or Divine origin if it be Divine then every body opposing it will fight against God and God does not lose- even battles in history he will not suffer deteat.


Tertullian

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Tertullian]
 
I must admit, I will have to think about it. Your note about the "Orphaned Church" seems to do justice to the Church as "Bride" also. Christ building His church/bride and nurturing and protecting and cleansing her until the end of the age. Also as Queen.

Yet He calls His Bride to suffer. Why ? ? ?

It seems on the surface in Premil the gospel fails, and Christ throws His wife to the wolves like Lot offering His daughters to the men of Sodom.

You would think the success of the gospel would be more obvious in 2000 years, and Orthodoxy would be more clear.
What about all the division ? ?
 
Roldan's Rebuddle to Paul Manata

Paul's quotes will be in regular type and my responses in bold.

First let me say that I am enjoying this and totally respect my brothers in the common faith. Paul is very blessed in his biblical knowledge. I am no theologian or scholar so will not try to debate as such but will engage in what I disagree with other brothas by what I have studied and learned of Reformed Theology for the last 10 years and all aspects of it.

Please bare with me as I, in meekness, try my best to show that my optimism as an Amil is not "silly" and is VERY biblical.


1. "Notice that my question was not answered."

[b:c2e1767dee]They most certainly was. The reader must notice that Paul only quoted half of my response to his question. Allow me to reitterate what my answer was to the whole "die" issue of Isa. 65:[/b:c2e1767dee]

Old Testament passages frequently cited to substantiate the reality of an unrealized millennium(either in its Pre- or Post- form) do not hold any weight.

Isaiah 65:17-25 in one clear example. We both would agree that the passage speaks of a golden-age. The Postmil(as well as the Premil)will argue that the passage mentions children dying at one hundred years old, and sinners accursed at the end of the same period time. Taking this TOO literally, they insist that it must refer to an imperfect golden-age. And since the one thousand years obviously pertain to a time in which sin and death remain, they feel it is perfectly natural to superimpose the one passage on another.

Careful examination, however,shows two faults with this presupposition. First, there must be unquestionable evidence for indentifying the Isaiah prophecy with Revelation 20. This evidence is totally lacking. The two are brought together in an unatural union. Who can prove, scripturally, that when Isaiah wrote "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together," he was speaking of the SAME period that John calls the "thousand years"? There are indications in the passage itself that it is not to be treated literally like "dust" becoming the serpent's food can hardly be literal.

The contents of Isaiah's POETIC prophecy are no more literal than the description of the eternal state in Rev. 21 and 22. Who can interpret all the details of those two chapters literally? In both, Isaiah and Rev., language is used,in terms of what was considered most pleasant and astonishing in that day, to get across what words with their present limitations are incapable of correctly expressing. How else can perfection be described in words which have imperfect objects and concepts as recipients? It is difficult to understand why this passage should be misinterpreted when it clearly is indentified with the eternal state by the New Testament. The millennial references is totally without evidence, but its identification with the eternal state is affirmed by an abundance of biblical evidence.

[b:c2e1767dee]sorry forgot to bold.[/b:c2e1767dee]

2. "Furthermore, men like Owen believe that we are in the new heavens and earth right now, in a sense! I believe that we are, in a sense! Christ is *currently* making all things new. Thus we are in the new heavens and earth but not the consumated one."

[b:c2e1767dee]AMEN![/b:c2e1767dee]




3."Similar to Christ being King but there are still enemies. So, again, what does the "optamistic amil" (we could say "closet postmill) say to this???"

[b:c2e1767dee]Simple, ALL enemies will be crushed at the consumation.There will be no heathen remnants to rebel later in history. [/b:c2e1767dee]

4."What does "death" mean? Isa 65 says people will *die*! What theological gymnastics can be put forth?"

[b:c2e1767dee]Well lets do a backflip back to the response above. Also here is a question, will all humans in the "golden age" die at exactly 100yrs old? After all that is what the text says, now I WONDER what hermenuetic magic will follow.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Let the us reading this remember the symbolic nature of prophecy and its already/not yet characteristics.[/b:c2e1767dee]
[b:c2e1767dee]Also its typical and spiritual fulfillments.[/b:c2e1767dee]

5."I have studied them and believe them all to be arbitrary, ad hoc, responses."

[b:c2e1767dee]:Let the reader not that my answers were not ad hoc but direct responses.[/b:c2e1767dee]


6."But, take a postmill perspective and the passage fits"

[b:c2e1767dee]Not really, when understanding the nature of prophecy and applying it the Amil fits bettter.[/b:c2e1767dee]


7."Moreover, I did not say that ALL of Isa 65 would be fulfilled. We have to recognize certain prophetic technichs employes here."

[b:c2e1767dee]Ahhhh, you mean spiritual?[/b:c2e1767dee]


"The reader will also note that Eze 36 has not been delt with. What does it mean that the earth will look like eden but there will be hethen nations *present*??? What does it mean that God's people will rule??? Remember that there are hethen nations PRESENT. How will this be reinterpreted? What will the forthcomming answer be?"

[b:c2e1767dee]Not reinterpretated but how is it interpretated by most Reformed theologians historically and biblically, not that majority always matters but let the reader note that I am in good company.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]First note that nowhere in the text of Eze. 36 is any mention of the "earth" looking like eden, that is the postmilla reading the golden age into the text. The text speaks of cities that were ruined being rebuilt to look like eden. Israel as a nation was God's garden. If we look back to Eze. 28:13,14 we see that the prophet here uses and also joins two illustrations for the dwelling place of God, a garden and a mountain. Then we turn to chpt. 40:16: "palm trees-see also vv. 22, 31, 34, 37. The decoration in Israel's ancient sancturaries was mainly botanical; varieties of trees and plants decorated the sacred area(Ex. 25:34;37:19; 1King 6:18,29,32,35). In this respect the sancturaries of Israel suggested the beauty of the Garden of Eden and set before Israel the GOAL of again dwelling in God's garden(28:13,14 note[/b:c2e1767dee])[b:c2e1767dee]"[/b:c2e1767dee] [i:c2e1767dee]The Reformation Study Bible[/i:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Also research your commentaries to see this same interpretation[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]What's the point you ask, if not already obvious. The prophets depict the nation of Israel and its temple the garen of eden. The Church now is Israel and therefore the garden of eden /mountain NOT the earth.[/b:c2e1767dee] [b:c2e1767dee]The Church as the garden of Eden will reach its fullness of beauty in the second coming.[/b:c2e1767dee] [b:c2e1767dee]Allelujah!!!!![/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]So when the kingdom is extended through the preaching of the gospel and many are saved and brought into the "garden of God", the heathen will take notice. God will fill the Church and will be evident to the heathen.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Let the reader also take notice that right after vs 35 speaks of the Eden, vs. 36 says that "..the NATIONS WHICH ARE LEFT ALL AROUND.." If ALL nations will be subdued hence bringing in the golden age garden of eden, WHY are there NATIONS LEFT?![/b:c2e1767dee]

"Further, let the reader note that I have based my argument for postmillenialism off covenant theology. Has this even been touched?!!? Again, the promises to Abraham INCLUDE the physical earth, all the while these promises mention "surrounding hethen nations" therefore, it cannot be the eternal state."

[b:c2e1767dee]So you agree with the Dispo here? The postmilla is still waiting for an physical promise that has been fulfilled in Joshua 13-21:45? Did we forget that the promise land that was promised physically that was ALREADY fulfilled was the shadow of the eternal state of New heavens and New earth?[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Furthermore Abraham was promised a physical piece of land on the earth but even Abraham understood that there was something better, Eternity with God the real promise land.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]We cannot jump from a Historical-Grammatical hermenuetic to a Disp Literalistic hermen. when convenient to our theology.[/b:c2e1767dee]

"Lastly, what has not been delt with is my argument from believers (AFB). Roldan, as an optamistic amill, said that he has confidence that the NATIONS will be blessed. That the great commission will be fulfilled. That "righteousness" will cover the earth. Now, how can a large increase in Christians NOT make an impact on society?"

[b:c2e1767dee]Again I will reiterate what I said to this:[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Many will be saved but many will also become worse(wheat,tares) The gospel WILL accomplish the great commission bringing the ELECT out of all nations but at the same time reprobates continue to be born and grow worse. [/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Wow that was long and tiresome but I will not fold!!!![/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Its hard to answer every single thing for me anyways, can we take one at a time, you pick.[/b:c2e1767dee]










[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]:D

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]
 
Paul says: "Basically, optamistic amill is an oxymoran, a contradiction (as Gentry argues), or as I say, closet postmills. We can get into this if you want to.":lol:

You still my dog, posty!:cool:
 
I did read your post. I am still not 100% convinced.


I believe any preterism, partial or full, to be absurd.

I used to accept partial until I thought about it in context of all historical data.

For instance, if 70 A.D. was a Parousia of judgment on the Jews, then so was the holocaust. Any genocide could be categorized that way, which diminishes the emphasis of the parousia in the New Testament.

Stalin's bloodbath would have to be considered a parousia as well.



[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Wintermute]
 
I have only read Sproul's book on Preterism.
I thought it implied several minor parousias ? ?

I am printing out your last post. I will read it.
 
[quote:d75f0f0ebe][i:d75f0f0ebe]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d75f0f0ebe]
[quote:d75f0f0ebe]
Paul is very blessed in his biblical knowledge. I am no theologian or scholar so will not try to debate as such but will engage in what I disagree with other brothas by what I have studied and learned of Reformed Theology for the last 10 years and all aspects of it.
[/quote:d75f0f0ebe]

Well, I thank you for the compliment. And, we are the same with respect to "theologian and scholar." I am not one either. Hopefully, when I finish schooling I will lay claim to that title, but for now this is just a testing ground for me. Your compliments should be saved for those like Webmaster, Fred Greco, Pastor Way, Rich Barcellos, etc. Those men who are either in the ministry or training to be so (forgive me if I left out others). Also, you have studied Reformed theology for 10 yrs! This puts you way, way, ahead of me. Indeed, I have only been a Christian for almost 5 years. I hope I don't sound arrogant or rude or dogmatic, to you. This is just how I debate. I hope that my interaction with brothers who are very close theologically to me has proved that I harbor no ill feeling towards those who I differ on many more issues with. I deabte all the same.


[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:d75f0f0ebe]


No offense taken my brotha, you my man!

I love to be challenged the way you do and find it fun to debate with creative and gunz blazing type cats like you.

What gets under my skin is the exagerated humbleness of people who want to debate and get bent out of shape if you come out dropin bombs.

I love you MAAAAAAAN!
:bigcry:

the smiley things are coo
 
Paul, Richard and Mark,

Thank you for the discussion. I have been learning much from them.

I have a question for Paul.

I am sort of confused as to what is to be defined as postmillennialism.

From what I've always heard, postmillenialists teach that millennium does not begin until some extended period after the resurrection of Christ.

What you are saying, if I have understood you, is that the millennium began with the resurrection of Christ and extends to the second coming (the same as does the amillennialists). If this is true, then what is the difference between postmillennialism and "optimistic" amillennialism? Is it simply a difference in semantics? Or is there more to it?

Also, has this interpretation of the millennium (from resurrection to second advent) always been considered a postmillenial interpretation? I have heard that many of the puritans were postmillenial. Were they in agreement with this interpretation of the millennium (resurrection to second advent), or did they hold that the millennium was to begin an extended time after the resurrection of Christ?

(By the way, I guess I would be considered by all three of you to be a "pessimistic" amillenialist (though I believe that the gospel has been triumphant). However, I have enjoyed the conversation.)

Thanks,


[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Dan....]
 
Are you advocating an intermediate state between the the first and second advents where the NT is not normative? It was after Christ ascended that Paul said that Satan is 'the god of this age' (2 Cor.4:4). With the new creation inagurated by Christ, the age to come has eclipsed this age and we live in the tension of the already/not yet. When the not yet comes in its fullness, Satan shall be cast into the lake of fire along with the sons of the evil one, marriage will cease, death will be no more, dying will be a relic of the past, and only glorified men will populate the new earth. When all evil is gone, this present evil age will be no more. Until that time, we live in two ages at once. Is the NT normative for the interadvental period? [/quote]

i apologize for my late response....unix shell scripting is killing me!!!!! well a common charge against postmills is the one that we do not hold to 2 age model of biblical eschatology as taught by the late dr. vos. they say by looking towards victory of the church in history we are inserting an additional age. let me just say that this is simply not the case. we see the kingdom as established in 1st century, but growing over time into maturity...not setting up a diffrent age. Our Lord describes it as a "mystery" in the parables. the illustrations of the mustard see, leaven teaches us that the kingdom start small, but gradually grows big and fills the earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top