Millennial flavors

[undead]

Do dispie's suffer this way?

[Carl Smuda]

Exactly! They keep it in line to the end and then God says, "nope. I changed the rules again. yuk-yuk."

[PuritanD]

I have moved more to the historical premil view with a post-trib rapture. Hard to believe, I know. There has got to be something about the one taken and one remaining in both Luke 17 and Matt 24 and 1 Thess 4 when we meet him in the air...

PuritanD

[bar Jonah]

Daniel, the founder of GODISNOWHERE, is a dispy pre-tribber, but he likes to say he is a "pan-tribber."

"However it pans out is fine with me."

[efta777]

That's how the pastor at my old church used to put it.
I feel bad for him, though, because he is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that he will still be pastor of that church when he is raptured, so where we have pictures of all the past pastors on one of the walls in the church, his says:
Rev. Skip Lane
1991-rapture

[Hitch]

spumoni

[Dave]

but what exactly is 'historical premil'?

My third post!

[Hitch]

That view predates DF (dispensational futurist) by over 1,000 years.

H

[Dave]

Today @ 09:26 PM
Hitch:

That view predates DF (dispensational futurist) by over 1,000 years.

H

what exactly does historical premill profess? It's not the whole 'Ephream the Syrian' thing, is it?

[bar Jonah]

03-15-2003 @ 02:26 PM
Hitch:

That view predates DF (dispensational futurist) by over 1,000 years.

H

Logical fallacy, your presupposition that dispensational futurism isn't the correct view. IF it is the correct view, then it is biblical and older than any other view.

Your assumptions are showing.

[Solly]

David

Historic pre mill does not see a difference between Israel and the Church; Christ comes, there is the millennium, and then the end with the resurrection. No prior rapture/resurrection of the church. Generally, they see Revelation as plotting out history, hence the idea of our being in laodicean days, or philadelphian, or sardisan, since they did not automatically assume they were in the end times. A lot of it, after the Reformation, was pinned to the idea that the Pope was the antichrist, so they worked their numbers from about 660 Ad, ending up with 1860 as the start of the millenium. Of course, when that failed, class. premill took a tumble...

For the right back in hisotry view, pre mill came through the Asia Minor Gang, first through Montanus (noted Heretic), and then Justin Martyr and Ireneaus; but it was never generally accepted, and was specifically outlawed at times.
It cropped up again in the middle ages, and passed into the REformation times via the Anabaptists. In places it merged with classical post millennialism, so that they were almost indistinguishable in the Reformed churches. It survives today in certain Protestant circles.

[Carl Smuda]

Today @ 08:02 AM
Solly:

David

Historic pre mill does not see a difference between Israel and the Church; Christ comes, there is the millennium, and then the end with the resurrection. No prior rapture/resurrection of the church. Generally, they see Revelation as plotting out history, hence the idea of our being in laodicean days, or philadelphian, or sardisan, since they did not automatically assume they were in the end times. A lot of it, after the Reformation, was pinned to the idea that the Pope was the antichrist, so they worked their numbers from about 660 Ad, ending up with 1860 as the start of the millenium. Of course, when that failed, class. premill took a tumble...

For the right back in hisotry view, pre mill came through the Asia Minor Gang, first through Montanus (noted Heretic), and then Justin Martyr and Ireneaus; but it was never generally accepted, and was specifically outlawed at times.
It cropped up again in the middle ages, and passed into the REformation times via the Anabaptists. In places it merged with classical post millennialism, so that they were almost indistinguishable in the Reformed churches. It survives today in certain Protestant circles.

Solly that's awful! I can't believe you posted that. David my sources trace historical premillennialism back hundreds of years before Christ. It was an ancient Jewish belief in a coming Golden Age of Messianic Rule, a Messianic Kingdom and a transformation of nature itself. It included a general resurrection and the length of this coming age varied several hundred years depending on one's source. 600, 800, 1000 years. It wasn't a heretic that championed that classic millennialism it was the parent Faith. Origen and Augustine are the ones who switched the Church from "chilism" to Amillennialism.

[Solly]

03-17-2003 @ 05:53 PM post located here
Carl Smuda:

Sorry Carl, but it depends which books you read, and I have been reading one from the Orthodox Church, who kinda have proprietorial rights over the Early Church Fathers. If you are reading ones which promote class premill, then it will look good. Yes I missed the connection with Jewish chiliasm, but since I believe they got it wrong, that is not to the point. Most of the early church did NOT hold to chiliastic views as was being shown here, and they were condemend in one of the councils. Most of the chiliasms did come out of Asia Minor, of which Montanus was the first prominent exponent.

[Carl Smuda]

What critical difference is there between Jewish chilism and historcial premillennialism? Other than the length of time? 600, 800, 1000 years....or the timing of the general resurrection? (before during or after the Messianic Kingdom) the belief in the restoration of all things, and the transformation of nature is the common denominator. You can't give all that credit to Montanists. You make it sound like they invented this eschatological belief out of thin air.

I suppose we can't deny that the Jews didn't recognize their own Messiah (blessed be Him), and I suppose we can question their entire method of eschatology. But, a return to eden-like earth is the very essense of chilism/classical/historical premilennialism.

I honestly don't see the difference. The day of the Lord, the coming wrath of God. That goes back centuries. It has an historical meaning that was understood when John-the-baptist asked the Pharisees, "who warned YOU to flee from the wrath to come?" The Apostle Paul, I believe, most certainly equated the Day of the Lord with the Day of Christ.

The books I read are John Brights "Kingdom of God"; Albert Schweitzer's "the mysticism of Paul the Apostle", "The Mystery of the Kingdom", "The Kingdom of God and primitive Christianity"; Anthony Buzzard's "Our Fathers who aren't in heaven." Paul somebody's work "When time shall be no more." That last one was a history of beliefs in prophecy.

the church was premillennial until they switched to Amillennial in the third or fourth century. That means for three hundred years they carried the historical jewish eschatology.

Right? Wrong? I respectfully request assistance adjusting my thinking on this.

[Elect Lady]

Greetings,

I am Amillennial!

Blessings,