What is the purpose of the millennium according to historic premillennialism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Reinstating a sacrificial system is blasphemous in my estimation since the Lord instituted the Lord's supper as a memorial. You haven't addressed that David. You are not interacting with the four questions either. You are obfuscating and not answering.
You keep seeing it as being the OT system reinstituted, which we premils do not.... I have listed Isaiah, and Psalms, so why not have some interact with me on how and why A Mils do not see a literal Kingdom Age on earth being described?e Also have given links to where others can describe the premil viewpoint better than myself.
Men such as Charles Spurgeon and Dr Boice held to same views as mine in this, were they all wrong?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Please quote the text that shows such. You know it is not there. So, you have nothing in the OT. What about the NT?

Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.
NO premil mil states and holds that the OT sacrifices are being redone for the same purpose as under the OT economy, so that is a straw man!
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Yes you are and you are worthless in this conversation as far as I can see it. You have just made 4 posts at least on this. You just went in a big circle. We were speaking about specific things. You are not worth answering here in my estimation. I love you but you are more confusing than light bearing in this conversation. I have pointed to specific things that are pointed and defined by easier passages. I have made accusations against the premil interpretation. I have mentioned how it steals time away and leads others into a misguided study with no application and a possible set up for a false belief in a future Utopia of a false Messiah monarch. The Sacrificial System reinstituted is blasphemous. Christology is defiled by this system as it pertains to the Kingdom of God and Christ as Messiah the Prince our Mediator. There are all kinds of things wrong with this.
Why are you allowed others here to blast away at a premil understanding, and not show to us grace to believe as we do, and not allow one to question seriously problems within A Mil viewpoint? Do you hold that no Calvinist or Reformed believer can hold to Premil then?
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
NO premil mil states and holds that the OT sacrifices are being redone for the same purpose as under the OT economy, so that is a straw man!

You keep seeing it as being the OT system reinstituted, which we premils do not.... I have listed Isaiah, and Psalms, so why not have some interact with me on how and why A Mils do not see a literal Kingdom Age on earth being described?e Also have given links to where others can describe the premil viewpoint better than myself.

Really? Do you believe the following sacrifices will be reintroduced in your future millennium or do you spiritualise them?

The meat offering – Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20.

The sin offering – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20.

The trespass offering – Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20.

The burnt offerings – Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15.

The peace offerings – Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12.

The drink offerings – Ezekiel 45:17.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
If you would actually objectively examine Isaiah 2 and 65 you would see that one relates expressly to "the last days" and the other relates to "the new heavens and new earth." Due to the scriptural silence on a future millennium, Premillennialists have to dump texts that have absolutely nothing to do with such a suppose future millennium. No text is safe under Premil hermeneutics.

Isaiah 65:17-19 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

Can I remind you that the new heavens and the the new earth come are not the millennium, but they come after the millennium?

Look at Revelation 21:1-4: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

Revelation 22:3 tells us that there is coming a day where “there shall be no more curse.”
Isaiah 2 talks about the future Day, when the nations shall obey the God of Israel, and that all worship shall be unto Him, when has that happened?
It seems to describe a literal future time yet to happen, and those descriptions would seem to indicate aspects pf Messiah that did not happen at first coming, so must be part of the second coming.
Revelation 19-20 ties into second coming and millennium, while 21 describes the eternal state afterwards.
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
Why are you allowed others here to blast away at a premil understanding, and not show to us grace to believe as we do, and not allow one to question seriously problems within A Mil viewpoint? Do you hold that no Calvinist or Reformed believer can hold to Premil then?

He did not attack your right to advance Premil, it is your constant avoidance that he challenged.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
You keep seeing it as being the OT system reinstituted, which we premils do not....
You said the sacrifices were going to be reinstated as a memorial. We are allowing you to define this. You have only one more chance before I close you out here David. You refuse to interact with the four questions. We have specifically asked you to give us specific passages and asked you to explain them. You are not doing that. You made the claim. We are only reacting to your claim. I am not saying the OT system is reinstituted. You are stating the sacrifices are going to start up again as a memorial. I am claiming that to be blasphemous. We are not misunderstanding you.
I have listed Isaiah, and Psalms, so why not have some interact with me on how and why A Mils do not see a literal Kingdom Age on earth being described?
You have not given us specific passages to deal with and why YOU believe they are to be interpreted or exegeted as you understand them. Do it.
Also have given links to where others can describe the premil viewpoint better than myself.
Well then, quote them. Let us know why you believe them to be correct. That is called interaction. That is called sharing why you believe what you believe. I can say I agree with So and So but that doesn't explain anything. Do you see what I am saying? There is no defense or doctrinal proof or testing the way you are doing this. Anyone can post a link and say I believe this. Tell us why you do.
Men such as Charles Spurgeon and Dr Boice held to same views as mine in this, were they all wrong?
Yes, I do believe they are wrong. Dr. Boice really is out of bounds confessionally here also in my estimation. It is a rare thing for a Confessional Presbyterian to hold to the views he held here. As for Spurgeon, I really can't answer for him.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
You said the sacrifices were going to be reinstated as a memorial. We are allowing you to define this. You have only one more chance before I close you out here David. You refuse to interact with the four questions. We have specifically asked you to give us specific passages and asked you to explain them. You are not doing that. You made the claim. We are only reacting to your claim. I am not saying the OT system is reinstituted. You are stating the sacrifices are going to start up again as a memorial. I am claiming that to be blasphemous. We are not misunderstanding you.

You have not given us specific passages to deal with and why YOU believe they are to be interpreted or exegeted as you understand them. Do it.

Well then, quote them. Let us know why you believe them to be correct. That is called interaction. That is called sharing why you believe what you believe. I can say I agree with So and So but that doesn't explain anything. Do you see what I am saying? There is no defense or doctrinal proof or testing the way you are doing this. Anyone can post a link and say I believe this. Tell us why you do.

Yes, I do believe they are wrong. Dr. Boice really is out of bounds confessionally here also in my estimation. It is a rare thing for a Confessional Presbyterian to hold to the views he held here. As for Spurgeon, I really can't answer for him.
I am really not trying to seem stubborn on this discussion, but you really seem to not see any form of Premil as being allowed per the scriptures, and so many reformed Baptists would be accused of holding to aberrant ttheology, which to me is really not being Christ like .
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Why are you allowed others here to blast away at a premil understanding, and not show to us grace to believe as we do, and not allow one to question seriously problems within A Mil viewpoint? Do you hold that no Calvinist or Reformed believer can hold to Premil then?
You don't get to answer for Jacob David. I do believe a Calvinist can be Premil. Duh. John MacArthur is a progressive dispensationalist Premillennialist. You keep making the most outrageous statements and claiming things I have never said. Stop it.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
You don't get to answer for Jacob David. I do believe a Calvinist can be Premil. Duh. John MacArthur is a progressive dispensationalist Premillennialist. You keep making the most outrageous statements and claiming things I have never said. Stop it.
What did you mean about DR Boice quote in post 340 then, as I do not want to misunderstand you here, or to put words in your mouth either!
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I am really not trying to seem stubborn on this discussion, but you really seem to not see any form of Premil as being allowed per the scriptures, and so many reformed Baptists would be accused of holding to aberrant ttheology, which to me is really not b eing Christ like .
Yes, I do believe it is an aberrant theology. That doesn't mean I hate anyone. Come on. You just aren't communicating or interacting.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, I do believe it is an aberrant theology. That doesn't mean I hate anyone. Come on. You just aren't communicating or interacting.
Even though premil has been held as being a valid understanding of Eschatology for past 2000 years, hels by some of the most prominent Christians?
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
David,

As you were probably asking a question while I was posting I am restating the my prior post. And Chiliasm is not the same as the Premillennialism of today.

David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.

How many pages have I been asking you to interact with the four questions? You are done next post if you don't.
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
Isaiah 2 talks about the future Day, when the nations shall obey the God of Israel, and that all worship shall be unto Him, when has that happened?
It seems to describe a literal future time yet to happen, and those descriptions would seem to indicate aspects pf Messiah that did not happen at first coming, so must be part of the second coming.
Revelation 19-20 ties into second coming and millennium, while 21 describes the eternal state afterwards.

Isaiah 2:2-4 relates to the one-and-only "last days" - the here-and-now. Many Scriptures support the fact we are in the last days. It testifies, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Can I remind you that the "last days" (plural) comes before Christ's return, not after (Acts 2:16-21, 1 Corinthians 10:11, 1 Timothy 3:1, Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26, I John 2:18, James 5:1-3, 1 Peter 1:18-20 and 2 Peter 3:3)? The "last day" (singular) occurs at Christ's climactic coming (John 11:23-24 6:39, 6:44, John 6:54, 12:48, 2 Timothy 4:8). Where is the millennium described as "the last days" or "the new heavens and new earth" in Revelation 20?

Isaiah 2:2-4 is telling us that Messiah would come and bring peace to His subjects. This would be performed through the Word of God going out of Zion to all nations in these last days. Christ did this. The Gentiles are now coming to the truth of God by their millions. Isaiah receives a pictorial vision of the approaching new covenant order, and the last days. It is given in a metaphorical style describing the incredible peace and reconciliation that comes through the success of the Gospel. The mountain of the Lord refers to the kingdom introduced by Christ. There is no more war there. Mountains in Scripture prophetically speak of kingdoms. That is the case in Isaiah 2 and Malachi 4. The peace described came with the earthly ministry of Christ. It is spiritual. It pertains to the kingdom of God. It also relates to the last days – the days we are living in.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.
I do not desire to have any other person here become angry at me, or get me into not reacting as a Christ follower, so will be taking myself off this topic for now, as do not desire to see this get more agitated or heat up any more than it appears to have gotten!
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
David,

As you were probably asking a question while I was posting I am restating the my prior post. And Chiliasm is not the same as the Premillennialism of today.

David, Answer the questions I asked you to interact with and quit sidelining. Quit obfuscating. You are not going to continue this. 4 questions. You are done next post if you don't answer the 4 questions.

How many pages have I been asking you to interact with the four questions? You are done next post if you don't.


The main problem is: no Premil could ever prove any text to support future sin offerings. The New Testament strongly forbids it. What is more, there is no the slightest support for this theory in Revelation 20. Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

The only provision for our sins, is the sacrifice of Calvary. The sad thing is: many Christians today speak on this subject as if the cross never happened. They talk as if the old covenant is still germane today or will be in the future. They fail to see that it has been eternally removed because the new covenant has wholly replaced it. This is why they get messed up when they get to this overall subject.

The old covenant was only a signpost to the new covenant – the substance, the fulfilment and the reality. Hebrews 10:1 makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”

Contrary to what nearly all Premillennialists believe, the ceremonial law is never depicted in Scripture as looking back but always forward. Please see “the law” was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’. It is never represented as being useful after the cross. It was the “shadow” that pointed onward towards the coming Messiah. The sacrifices offered under the old covenant were never intended to be permanent, but transitory. The symbol, picture and figure in the Old Testament always predates, and points forward towards, the reality, substance, image and realization in Christ.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I will try to give my answers here, but just curious, as to why Premils like myself seem to always get shouted down here, as when we give what we believe scriptures are teaching get put down?

David,

You were not being shouted down. You refused for 5 pages of interaction to answer the four questions above. I was directing you to have some honest integrity and to faithfully interact with the four questions you were given. Those four questions were repeated many times. You said the animal sacrifices were going to be reinstituted in the future as a memorial of Christ in your Premillennial view. You finally said you would comply on page 10. Then you refused to do that and started accusing the board of shouting down the Premil position. All you were required to do was to give specific scripture references with your understanding. I know you are capable of doing that. I also know you understood you were being required to give a defence of your position. You chose not to do that by obfuscation (redirecting the conversation away from the topic you chose to advocate but did not choose to defend). That sounds like you were just throwing out propaganda in sound bites without proving the facts. I know you don't want to do that. Please learn how to interact in a faithful honest manner brother. I am going to give you a week to work on your answers for the four questions and then you can post them if you desire.

Here they are again.

@ Dachaser
1)Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

2)Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

3)Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

4)Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.
 

sovereigngrace

Puritan Board Freshman
David,

You were not being shouted down. You refused for 5 pages of interaction to answer the four questions above. I was directing you to have some honest integrity and to faithfully interact with the four questions you were given. Those four questions were repeated many times. You said the animal sacrifices were going to be reinstituted in the future as a memorial of Christ in your Premillennial view. You finally said you would comply on page 10. Then you refused to do that and started accusing the board of shouting down the Premil position. All you were required to do was to give specific scripture references with your understanding. I know you are capable of doing that. I also know you understood you were being required to give a defence of your position. You chose not to do that by obfuscation (redirecting the conversation away from the topic you chose to advocate but did not choose to defend). That sounds like you were just throwing out propaganda in sound bites without proving the facts. I know you don't want to do that. Please learn how to interact in a faithful honest manner brother. I am going to give you a week to work on your answers for the four questions and then you can post them if you desire.

Here they are again.

@ Dachaser
1)Could you show me any Scripture that proves animal sacrifices will be re-introduced as ceremonial memorial sacrifices on the new earth?

2)Where does it teach in the New Testament that we should (or can) sacrifice animals to commemorate Christ's death?

3)Are Christ’s hands and feet not a satisfactory enough reminder of the cross for the inhabitants of the new earth?

4)Does Hebrews 10:1 not make clear that the Jewish ceremonial law was “a shadow of good things to come” not ‘good things that have been’? The ceremonial law is never depicted as looking back but always forward.

The reason why Premillennialists duck and dive around presenting evidence to support the theory of future millennial memorial animal sacrifices on the new earth is because:
  1. Revelation 20 makes no mention of it.
  2. Multiple New Testament Scriptures expressly forbid them.
  3. The Scripture texts they present in support make absolutely no mention of any sort of “memorial” animal sacrifices. This is a Premillennialist invention.
  4. The Scriptures that they present in support all belong to the old covenant, and have long past their expiration date. None belong to the new covenant, or the hereafter.
  5. Premillennialists know in their heart-of-hearts that the cross was the final sacrifice for sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top