| Author |
Message |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 1:12 pm: |     |
Yes Phil,
I think "literal" is perhaps not the best way to put it. The book of Revelation is anything but literal.
Loneviking, thanks for that thought about Jesus' intercession, it is certainly something worth thinking about. I don't recall having heard that before.
As I said, I have still not been able to decide what to think on this issue.
Adrian |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 1:20 pm: | |
The explanation for the amil position would be, as far as I can see, is that it means that Satan is bound in that Jesus defeated him on the cross, and new covenant Christians have been given authority over him and his demons in a way that old covenant believers were not.
The first resurrection is explained as "spiritual", i.e. the new birth, so those who are born again do not go to judgement, and the second resurrection is physical. I know it is not totally satifactory in the details, but in the same way as the amil position cannot be found in Rev, the premil position cannot be squeezed into Jesus' parables.
I think the parables have an amazing wealth of information which has often been neglected. Can anyone give me a parable which has space for the millennium?
If you do, I will immediately concede!
Adrian |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10630
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 6:59 pm: | |
My "roadblocks" to an amil position:
1. Defining "Resurrection" as spiritual in Rev 20:4-5 and as physical in Rev. 20:12-13.
2. Defining "Resurrection" as spiritual when every biblical reference to it describes a physical reality. There's no biblical precedent for understanding "resurrection" to be the "new birth".
3. Seeing the "man of lawlessness" of 2 Thess. 2:5-12 and the beast out of the sea in Revelation 13 as having been fulfilled in the Roman emperor at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.
4. Understanding the seven bowls of God's wrath in Revelation 16 to have already occurred.
5. Understanding the beast and the false prophet being thrown alive into the lake of fire as described in Revelation 19 to have already occurred.
6. Many of Jesus' parables can accommodate an earthly millennium if one sees them as His prophecies not only to His church but to the Jews—to whom Jesus' earthly ministry was primarily directed. When seen in conjunction with OT prophecies, Jesus' parables have new depth.
7. Reading Revelation as the ending of the Old Testament, the final word not only to the church but to Israel, also makes it seem much less "symbolic" and much more "physical".
8. Finally, while Revelation is hugely symbolic, it describes both the "immaterial" reality of heaven and angels and God (who are spirits), and the earth, which is physical. Human words used to describe spiritual beings (such as Satan being bound with chains) has to be metaphorical, because Satan is not a body. He is a spirit. The earth, however, and time itself, are material and physical, tangible and measurable in our three dimensions. Words used to describe material reality can be read much more literally, even if figurative language is used.
9. The amil. position would be more compelling to me if it weren't for the existence and miraculous survival of Israel. Think of the war of 1968...the fact of Israel makes Ezekiel and Isaiah suddenly look different.
But I'm OK with people not agreeing on this subject!
Colleen |
Philharris
Registered user
Username: Philharris
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 6:22 am: | |
Thank you Colleen,
While there is much symbolizm in the book of Revelation and there is certainly room for more than one interpretation, we must remember that these are the very words of Jesus Christ that John wrote down.
As such, everything said is truth and must have a real and literal fulfillment, even the parts that are expressed in obvious symbols.
My understanding of the use of symbolic expression is that this book has been given to all generations and much of 'end time events' would be beyond our understanding if told in technical detail only understood in those times.
The symbols reach beyond culture, place and time.
Fearless Phil |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 688
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 11:42 am: | |
Phil, and Colleen, which temple does Christ intecede for us in? And where is that temple? Is there any record in Revelation of that temple ever being transferred to earth?
I don't agree with all of the amillenial position, but I can't see an earthly reign of Christ in light of the work the book of Hebrews proclaims Christ will be doing until the end of sin. |
Philharris
Registered user
Username: Philharris
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 12:10 pm: | |
Loneviking,
You are asking one of many good questions. While not totally sure, it appears to me that it will be one literally built by the Jews.
On the other hand, I expect to be suprised by how many things described in Revelation actually work out.
My original reason for resoponding to this topic is I think the amil position has some logic problems, but am happy to be "educated" if I prove to be wrong.
Fearless Phil |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 2:08 pm: | |
Colleen,
You know I love you, and I think you are doing a great job, and I am not even disagreeing, as my principle view on the the millennium is, I do not know!
But,
You seem to be confusing amillennialism with the Preterist view. Preterists say that all of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. I definitely reject that view, though there may be a certain amount of "dual fulfilment" in some of the passages. Not all amillennialists are preterists by any means. For instance, George E. Ladd, whose view on the kingdom of God has helped me greatly, has also written a commentary on Revelation. His view is primarily futuralist, but he is also amil.
Also, for the idea that resurrection may occasionally be spiritual, what about Romans 6? Paul refers to water baptism as being "death and resurrection", though physical resurrection has not yet taken place.
Just throwing a spanner in the works, as usual :-)
AB |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10638
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 8:47 pm: | |
Adrian, you're right. In fact, I realized that I had possibly confused two issues--thanks for straightening me out! You can see how well-versed on this subject I am! 
Loneviking--First, Jesus is a priest forever as per Hebrews 7:23-25. Second, intercession is not only about "sin". It involves any mediation between two people and doesn't have to mean there is rectifying to do. Third, Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God on a sinful earth, and he was not of the tribe of Levi. I'm just not seeing Jesus' priesthood ending with sin as described in Hebrews.
Finally, regarding Romans 6--I guess I'm not seeing baptism called "resurrection" but a "likeness of His resurrection". At least in the NASB, here's what I have:
quote:Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin--Rom 6:4-6
The ESV says it this way:
quote:We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
So I'm not actually seeing "resurrection" as a word for spiritual life. I see a comparison being made between coming to life spiritually with coming to life physically. But again, I don't really know what to expect re: the millennium for sure, either!
Colleen |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 744
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 10:11 pm: | |
WOW! The advantage of being SDA. They know exactly what to believe abut the mil. And that coming from an inspired source.
Hec |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 - 2:41 pm: | |
Hec,
Yes, the "one true churches" have certainly got it all taped, and of cours, all of them in completely different ways :-)
Adrian |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 12:08 pm: | |
Colleen,
I just checked the Greek of Romans 6 v. 5, and it sure does use the word "likeness" (homoióma) for the death and resurrection "issue". Not a particularly easy matter to decide on!
Adrian |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10653
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 11:06 pm: | |
Yes, Adrian--and the search for accurate meaning goes on...
Sometimes I think about a passage in John Piper's book Brothers, We Are Not Professionals written for pastors. He commented that when we come to difficult biblical passages that we can't easily or clearly understand, we have to see those as God's command to us to ask Him to reveal truth to us. He said they are they so we will struggle with them and submit them to God.
So here I am, continuing to struggle and pray...
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 7718
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 15, 2009 - 7:54 am: | |
I like that Colleen about the difficult passages in the Bible. Ever since I read the NT in 2004 for the first time, all the way through, in context, I have done that. It just came naturally. I cannot understand it, God can, He will let me know when He knows I am ready. In other words in His time and in His way. Praise Our Awesome God.
Diana L |
Jody
Registered user
Username: Jody
Post Number: 89
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, February 07, 2010 - 9:20 am: | |
Adrian,
I need to correct you on one thing.In one of your former above posts you mentioned a man named George Eldon Ladd and you said he was an Amillenialist,however that is not true because he is actually a Historic Premillenialist.
I recently had a discussion with my SDA father about the Millenium.It all started when he made a scoffing remark about how some people only believed what they heard or read in some book or seen on a movie.Of course he was talking about last days events.Of course he knew how it was all going to come down because Adventists have it all down pat.I am going to attempt to articulate the Amillenial posistion to him not because I am dogmatic about it but just an attmept to try to give another perspective to him.I want to try and give him something to think about to perhaps cast some doubt on the SDA interpretation. I realize this may near be an impossible task but for some reason i feel compelled to attempt it anyway.
please pray for me in this endevour
Jody |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 - 12:13 am: | |
Thanks Jody,
I must have remembered that wrong, but that now means I like him (Ladd) even more than I did before :-)
His teaching on the kingdom of God is great.
Adrian |
|
