The Reformation: Dead, Dying or Unnecessary?
The Bible, do we really believe and live its principles? The state of religion is sad in general and questionable for Christians, in particular. In this 500th-year of the Reformation, where are we today?
Are we growing apart or together? Do we need to or supposed to grow apart or grow together? If it's the latter, was the Reformation necessary, to begin with? If it's the former, what are the real differences? Are they same today, as they were in the beginning, with Martin Luther and others?
Where is the passion, drive, sacrifice, and distinctiveness of the early reformers? Are we moving toward "One-world Religion?"
One wonders what we have now: Do we have two major divisions with one doctrinal teaching/head; or do we have one set of doctrinal teachings with two major divisions with multiple subsidiaries? What are Protestants protesting against? Have they lost their fire and fight for truth?
Are Protestants on the verge of surrendering to what they once fought and died? Like many things, are we studying and passing on biblical truths to the next generation? I know times, people, and things change, but not the principle of biblical truths.
My CD Family, think, study, and reflect (soberly) with me, on a time of new beginnings and a mission, that remains to honor the Lord, until He returns. CM
Comments
-
I think the greatest division in the Church today is because of differing eschatological beliefs. For instance, I'm Amillennial and believe the faithful will be few and far between just before the Lord returns. So things look normal to me. Others see a far different future. Everything from a postmillennial take over of the world (Dominion Theology). To the horrors of a great tribulation that in seven years, kills so many Christians no man can number. Followed by a Taliban or ISIS like Jewish Millennium. Yikes!
-
@C_M_ said:
The Bible, do we really believe and live its principles? The state of religion is sad in general and questionable for Christians, in particular. In this 500th-year of the Reformation, where are we today?Are we growing apart or together? Do we need to or supposed to grow apart or grow together? If it's the latter, was the Reformation necessary, to begin with? If it's the former, what are the real differences? Are they same today, as they were in the beginning, with Martin Luther and others?
Where is the passion, drive, sacrifice, and distinctiveness of the early reformers? Are we moving toward "One-world Religion?"
One wonders what we have now: Do we have two major divisions with one doctrinal teaching/head; or do we have one set of doctrinal teachings with two major divisions with multiple subsidiaries? What are Protestants protesting against? Have they lost their fire and fight for truth?
Are Protestants on the verge of surrendering to what they once fought and died? Like many things, are we studying and passing on biblical truths to the next generation? I know times, people, and things change, but not the principle of biblical truths.
My CD Family, think, study, and reflect (soberly) with me, on a time of new beginnings and a mission, that remains to honor the Lord, until He returns. CM
I think the Reformation was necessary. Truth and the liberation of the truth is always necessary.
@Dave_L said:
I think the greatest division in the Church today is because of differing eschatological beliefs. For instance, I'm Amillennial and believe the faithful will be few and far between just before the Lord returns. So things look normal to me. Others see a far different future. Everything from a postmillennial take over of the world (Dominion Theology). To the horrors of a great tribulation that in seven years, kills so many Christians no man can number. Followed by a Taliban or ISIS like Jewish Millennium. Yikes!I disagree. There is no question that there are differing beliefs but I don't see major divides overall with regard to this issue.
A bigger issue is the Deity of Christ.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
The Bible, do we really believe and live its principles? The state of religion is sad in general and questionable for Christians, in particular. In this 500th-year of the Reformation, where are we today?Are we growing apart or together? Do we need to or supposed to grow apart or grow together? If it's the latter, was the Reformation necessary, to begin with? If it's the former, what are the real differences? Are they same today, as they were in the beginning, with Martin Luther and others?
Where is the passion, drive, sacrifice, and distinctiveness of the early reformers? Are we moving toward "One-world Religion?"
One wonders what we have now: Do we have two major divisions with one doctrinal teaching/head; or do we have one set of doctrinal teachings with two major divisions with multiple subsidiaries? What are Protestants protesting against? Have they lost their fire and fight for truth?
Are Protestants on the verge of surrendering to what they once fought and died? Like many things, are we studying and passing on biblical truths to the next generation? I know times, people, and things change, but not the principle of biblical truths.
My CD Family, think, study, and reflect (soberly) with me, on a time of new beginnings and a mission, that remains to honor the Lord, until He returns. CM
I think the Reformation was necessary. Truth and the liberation of the truth is always necessary.
@Dave_L said:
I think the greatest division in the Church today is because of differing eschatological beliefs. For instance, I'm Amillennial and believe the faithful will be few and far between just before the Lord returns. So things look normal to me. Others see a far different future. Everything from a postmillennial take over of the world (Dominion Theology). To the horrors of a great tribulation that in seven years, kills so many Christians no man can number. Followed by a Taliban or ISIS like Jewish Millennium. Yikes!I disagree. There is no question that there are differing beliefs but I don't see major divides overall with regard to this issue.
A bigger issue is the Deity of Christ.
The Deity of Christ is a problem for a few sects and cults. But Evangelicalism (Protestantism repackaged) is divided mainly over world views because of its eschatology.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
The Bible, do we really believe and live its principles? The state of religion is sad in general and questionable for Christians, in particular. In this 500th-year of the Reformation, where are we today?Are we growing apart or together? Do we need to or supposed to grow apart or grow together? If it's the latter, was the Reformation necessary, to begin with? If it's the former, what are the real differences? Are they same today, as they were in the beginning, with Martin Luther and others?
Where is the passion, drive, sacrifice, and distinctiveness of the early reformers? Are we moving toward "One-world Religion?"
One wonders what we have now: Do we have two major divisions with one doctrinal teaching/head; or do we have one set of doctrinal teachings with two major divisions with multiple subsidiaries? What are Protestants protesting against? Have they lost their fire and fight for truth?
Are Protestants on the verge of surrendering to what they once fought and died? Like many things, are we studying and passing on biblical truths to the next generation? I know times, people, and things change, but not the principle of biblical truths.
My CD Family, think, study, and reflect (soberly) with me, on a time of new beginnings and a mission, that remains to honor the Lord, until He returns. CM
I think the Reformation was necessary. Truth and the liberation of the truth is always necessary.
@Dave_L said:
I think the greatest division in the Church today is because of differing eschatological beliefs. For instance, I'm Amillennial and believe the faithful will be few and far between just before the Lord returns. So things look normal to me. Others see a far different future. Everything from a postmillennial take over of the world (Dominion Theology). To the horrors of a great tribulation that in seven years, kills so many Christians no man can number. Followed by a Taliban or ISIS like Jewish Millennium. Yikes!I disagree. There is no question that there are differing beliefs but I don't see major divides overall with regard to this issue.
A bigger issue is the Deity of Christ.
The Deity of Christ is a problem for a few sects and cults. But Evangelicalism (Protestantism repackaged) is divided mainly over world views because of its eschatology.
I just do not see evidence of that being a main division in the church.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
The Bible, do we really believe and live its principles? The state of religion is sad in general and questionable for Christians, in particular. In this 500th-year of the Reformation, where are we today?Are we growing apart or together? Do we need to or supposed to grow apart or grow together? If it's the latter, was the Reformation necessary, to begin with? If it's the former, what are the real differences? Are they same today, as they were in the beginning, with Martin Luther and others?
Where is the passion, drive, sacrifice, and distinctiveness of the early reformers? Are we moving toward "One-world Religion?"
One wonders what we have now: Do we have two major divisions with one doctrinal teaching/head; or do we have one set of doctrinal teachings with two major divisions with multiple subsidiaries? What are Protestants protesting against? Have they lost their fire and fight for truth?
Are Protestants on the verge of surrendering to what they once fought and died? Like many things, are we studying and passing on biblical truths to the next generation? I know times, people, and things change, but not the principle of biblical truths.
My CD Family, think, study, and reflect (soberly) with me, on a time of new beginnings and a mission, that remains to honor the Lord, until He returns. CM
I think the Reformation was necessary. Truth and the liberation of the truth is always necessary.
@Dave_L said:
I think the greatest division in the Church today is because of differing eschatological beliefs. For instance, I'm Amillennial and believe the faithful will be few and far between just before the Lord returns. So things look normal to me. Others see a far different future. Everything from a postmillennial take over of the world (Dominion Theology). To the horrors of a great tribulation that in seven years, kills so many Christians no man can number. Followed by a Taliban or ISIS like Jewish Millennium. Yikes!I disagree. There is no question that there are differing beliefs but I don't see major divides overall with regard to this issue.
A bigger issue is the Deity of Christ.
The Deity of Christ is a problem for a few sects and cults. But Evangelicalism (Protestantism repackaged) is divided mainly over world views because of its eschatology.
I just do not see evidence of that being a main division in the church.
Evangelicalism generally believes the Ecumenical creeds. But her eschatology is absolutely wild after Darby and Scofield. DTS. Moody etc. Add Rushdoony, Gary North. The Preterists and other persuasions to the mix and it is crazy.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
The Bible, do we really believe and live its principles? The state of religion is sad in general and questionable for Christians, in particular. In this 500th-year of the Reformation, where are we today?Are we growing apart or together? Do we need to or supposed to grow apart or grow together? If it's the latter, was the Reformation necessary, to begin with? If it's the former, what are the real differences? Are they same today, as they were in the beginning, with Martin Luther and others?
Where is the passion, drive, sacrifice, and distinctiveness of the early reformers? Are we moving toward "One-world Religion?"
One wonders what we have now: Do we have two major divisions with one doctrinal teaching/head; or do we have one set of doctrinal teachings with two major divisions with multiple subsidiaries? What are Protestants protesting against? Have they lost their fire and fight for truth?
Are Protestants on the verge of surrendering to what they once fought and died? Like many things, are we studying and passing on biblical truths to the next generation? I know times, people, and things change, but not the principle of biblical truths.
My CD Family, think, study, and reflect (soberly) with me, on a time of new beginnings and a mission, that remains to honor the Lord, until He returns. CM
I think the Reformation was necessary. Truth and the liberation of the truth is always necessary.
@Dave_L said:
I think the greatest division in the Church today is because of differing eschatological beliefs. For instance, I'm Amillennial and believe the faithful will be few and far between just before the Lord returns. So things look normal to me. Others see a far different future. Everything from a postmillennial take over of the world (Dominion Theology). To the horrors of a great tribulation that in seven years, kills so many Christians no man can number. Followed by a Taliban or ISIS like Jewish Millennium. Yikes!I disagree. There is no question that there are differing beliefs but I don't see major divides overall with regard to this issue.
A bigger issue is the Deity of Christ.
The Deity of Christ is a problem for a few sects and cults. But Evangelicalism (Protestantism repackaged) is divided mainly over world views because of its eschatology.
I just do not see evidence of that being a main division in the church.
Evangelicalism generally believes the Ecumenical creeds. But her eschatology is absolutely wild after Darby and Scofield. DTS. Moody etc. Add Rushdoony, Gary North. The Preterists and other persuasions to the mix and it is crazy.
I'm not saying there are not differences of opinion, what I am saying is I do not see evidence of major divides specifically over End Times Theology.
-
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.
-
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
-
Brethren,
In keeping focused, what were the factors or conditions that led to the Reformation?
Why so many died? Who or what institution dominated biblical teachings or religious practices that caused a separation? Simply, are they important now as they were back then?Lines that are not clearly drawn or clear lines drawn, not maintained; there is a tendency of overgrowth of what was once divided. It becomes one, again.
Is your religious belief or affiliation the same as pre-reformation teachings and practices, with only a new name, with the repackaging of old beliefs and practices? In answering this, you must ask yourself, do I faithfully adhere to Bible truth?
Did the Reformation go far enough in its protect? If not, why not? In reflection, could this be the reason we have so many religious bodies and denominations?
Break open the history books and visit historical websites for fresh understanding. Could it be that the multiple methods of interpretation be the seeds of the "Counter-Reformation"? When you can't get people to buy into religious "fake news" (deviation from biblical principles), try persecution, confusion, fear, and/or materialism.
At the end of the day, if we don't watch it, we will become a part of what we think we're protesting against. At the same time, we become advocates what we are protesting. Spiritually sad! CM
-
I think eschatology is a very minor point in divisions--probably insignificant. It is the smoke, not the fire of divisions. Differing theology such as Covenental vs Dispensational are major players. Theology informs eschatology. Thus basic theology, not eschatology is the cause.
Other factors include personalities cults and strong traditions sets. But eschatology...nah.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
Was the Reformation Necessary?
https://www.thebanner.org/features/2011/01/was-the-reformation-necessary -
I think the Reformation reclaimed a lot of suppressed truth. But it was more of a power struggle for the control and reform of something that cannot be reformed - the visible institutional church and especially the visible institutional Church/State.
And the battle of truth and logic that brought about Protestantism wasn't necessarily a spiritual or godly movement. It was no doubt a violent movement based on logic that had a correct doctrinal starting point.
You cannot persecute and murder innocent people for thinking incorrect thoughts the way both Catholics and Protestants did and be a true follower of Christ.
But I believe the offshoot groups who mixed spirituality with the cold clear logic of Reformed doctrine had perhaps the greatest body of truth in Church History, including today.
These would be the English Baptists and their offshoots defined by the London Confessions of faith.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
No. End times theology, particularly the Millenium, is not essential to the Gospel. Important? Yes, it is a part of Scripture. Essential and something to divide over? Absolutely not.
In essentials Unity, non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
No. End times theology, particularly the Millenium, is not essential to the Gospel. Important? Yes, it is a part of Scripture. Essential and something to divide over? Absolutely not.
In essentials Unity, non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.
I cannot find the gospel of the kingdom as preached by Jesus and the NT writers in any of today's millennial schemes. Where do you find mention of a millennium, or a "secret" rapture, or people flying cows to Jerusalem from around the world once a year to make "commemorative" sacrifices at a physical temple? And so on......
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
No. End times theology, particularly the Millenium, is not essential to the Gospel. Important? Yes, it is a part of Scripture. Essential and something to divide over? Absolutely not.
In essentials Unity, non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.
I cannot find the gospel of the kingdom as preached by Jesus and the NT writers in any of today's millennial schemes. Where do you find mention of a millennium, or a "secret" rapture, or people flying cows to Jerusalem from around the world once a year to make "commemorative" sacrifices at a physical temple? And so on......
Dave, that isn't the topic of this discussion. What I am saying is you are trying to make something into a core issue of the faith that is not a core issue of the faith. Any honest scholar will tell you we don't fully know the details of end times.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say, division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
Is not opinions lead to division. And division leads to separation. My point is, an opinion should be explored to be truth or discarded as an error. If not, why hold it? Unverified opinions cherished will inevitably lead to division and separation. Cherished opinion without exploration is spiritual garbage. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say, division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
Is not opinions lead to division. And division leads to separation. My point is, an opinion should be explored to be truth or discarded as an error. If not, why hold it? Unverified opinions cherished will inevitably lead to division and separation. Cherished opinion without exploration is spiritual garbage. CM
I agree. But there are some things we do not know, and I'm not sure we have the capacity to fully understand. Therefore, those opinions should be just that, opinions. Is there a literal 1,000-year reign? I don't know. Personally, I believe there is. But I'm not going to desert a brother just because they don't believe there is one.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Is not opinions lead to division. And division leads to separation. My point is, an opinion should be explored to be truth or discarded as an error. If not, why hold it? Unverified opinions cherished will inevitably lead to division and separation. Cherished opinion without exploration is spiritual garbage. CM
I agree. But there are some things we do not know, and I'm not sure we have the capacity to fully understand. Therefore, those opinions should be just that, opinions. Is there a literal 1,000-year reign? I don't know. Personally, I believe there is. But I'm not going to desert a brother just because they don't believe there is one.
Let's not forget that context (immediate/intermediate, etc.), the language of the writer, idiom, and type of writing, that one is handling. Methods of interpretation used, generally, signals a predicted conclusion or outcome.
In addition, let's be mindful of the differences between an opinion **(may or may not, be based on a particular text) and a **biblical text. Every passage is encased in a context. "A text without a context is a "pre-text."
Beyond this, one should take every precaution to avoid the contamination of "FAITH" with an opinion. Here's a possible suggestion of a new thread, to keep the purity of this one: Faith vs Opinion.
As for the 1,000 years ("Millennium"-- possible new thread) in Rev. 20:1-7, it's mentioned six times, the only chapter in the Bible. Christians hold three major views about the 1,000 ("Millennium"):
1. "Postmillennialism"
2. "Premillennialism"
3. "Amillennialism"How readeth thou? CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
No. End times theology, particularly the Millenium, is not essential to the Gospel. Important? Yes, it is a part of Scripture. Essential and something to divide over? Absolutely not.
In essentials Unity, non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.
I cannot find the gospel of the kingdom as preached by Jesus and the NT writers in any of today's millennial schemes. Where do you find mention of a millennium, or a "secret" rapture, or people flying cows to Jerusalem from around the world once a year to make "commemorative" sacrifices at a physical temple? And so on......
Dave, that isn't the topic of this discussion. What I am saying is you are trying to make something into a core issue of the faith that is not a core issue of the faith. Any honest scholar will tell you we don't fully know the details of end times.
What I'm saying is that each millennial scheme presents a different Jesus. And this divides the church. The gospel always relates to the "Jesus" it represents. And some accepting the Dispensational Jesus would never accept the Amillennial Jesus. Etc.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
No. End times theology, particularly the Millenium, is not essential to the Gospel. Important? Yes, it is a part of Scripture. Essential and something to divide over? Absolutely not.
In essentials Unity, non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.
I cannot find the gospel of the kingdom as preached by Jesus and the NT writers in any of today's millennial schemes. Where do you find mention of a millennium, or a "secret" rapture, or people flying cows to Jerusalem from around the world once a year to make "commemorative" sacrifices at a physical temple? And so on......
Dave, that isn't the topic of this discussion. What I am saying is you are trying to make something into a core issue of the faith that is not a core issue of the faith. Any honest scholar will tell you we don't fully know the details of end times.
What I'm saying is that each millennial scheme presents a different Jesus. And this divides the church. The gospel always relates to the "Jesus" it represents. And some accepting the Dispensational Jesus would never accept the Amillennial Jesus. Etc.
How in the world do they present a different Jesus?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
No. End times theology, particularly the Millenium, is not essential to the Gospel. Important? Yes, it is a part of Scripture. Essential and something to divide over? Absolutely not.
In essentials Unity, non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.
I cannot find the gospel of the kingdom as preached by Jesus and the NT writers in any of today's millennial schemes. Where do you find mention of a millennium, or a "secret" rapture, or people flying cows to Jerusalem from around the world once a year to make "commemorative" sacrifices at a physical temple? And so on......
Dave, that isn't the topic of this discussion. What I am saying is you are trying to make something into a core issue of the faith that is not a core issue of the faith. Any honest scholar will tell you we don't fully know the details of end times.
What I'm saying is that each millennial scheme presents a different Jesus. And this divides the church. The gospel always relates to the "Jesus" it represents. And some accepting the Dispensational Jesus would never accept the Amillennial Jesus. Etc.
How in the world do they present a different Jesus?
This could become involved. But for starters let me say the Jesus of Dispensationalism, Post Millennialism, Preterism, or Dominion Theology is not even close to the same Jesus of non millenarianism (Amillennialism).
The Dispensationalists have a Jesus who failed to establish his kingdom and must try again. This is far different from the Jesus you can trust never to fail. The others preach a different Jesus too, but this point I believe introduces us to the problem.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
If you look at all the diverse positions in eschatology, we have tremendous division that did not exist before the "prophecy outbreaks" of the 1800s. Before then it was mostly Amillennialism and Premillennialism.Perhaps I need to understand what you mean when you say division. When I say division, I mean to the point that the two groups cannot associate with each other and that one says the other is not Christian. That type of division. Not difference of opinion.
I believe each millennial eschatological position preaches a different gospel from what Paul and the other NT figures preached. So I avoid churches that advocate millennialism in any form. I believe it divides the body of Christ.
You never hear of a millennium in any NT passage until John uses the term 1000 years in his highly symbolic book of Revelation. The ideas derived from this are totally absent from any NT presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom. This in itself raises serious questions about what John is talking about.
It is a non-essential Dave.
It is a different gospel and therefore non essential?
No. End times theology, particularly the Millenium, is not essential to the Gospel. Important? Yes, it is a part of Scripture. Essential and something to divide over? Absolutely not.
In essentials Unity, non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity.
I cannot find the gospel of the kingdom as preached by Jesus and the NT writers in any of today's millennial schemes. Where do you find mention of a millennium, or a "secret" rapture, or people flying cows to Jerusalem from around the world once a year to make "commemorative" sacrifices at a physical temple? And so on......
Dave, that isn't the topic of this discussion. What I am saying is you are trying to make something into a core issue of the faith that is not a core issue of the faith. Any honest scholar will tell you we don't fully know the details of end times.
What I'm saying is that each millennial scheme presents a different Jesus. And this divides the church. The gospel always relates to the "Jesus" it represents. And some accepting the Dispensational Jesus would never accept the Amillennial Jesus. Etc.
How in the world do they present a different Jesus?
This could become involved. But for starters let me say the Jesus of Dispensationalism, Post Millennialism, Preterism, or Dominion Theology is not even close to the same Jesus of non millenarianism (Amillennialism).
The Dispensationalists have a Jesus who failed to establish his kingdom and must try again. This is far different from the Jesus you can trust never to fail. The others preach a different Jesus too, but this point I believe introduces us to the problem.
None of what you said is actually true Dave. Dispensationalists do not have a Jesus who failed to establish his Kingdom. Good grief. Where do you come up with this stuff?
-
This is straight from the Scofield bible. Moreover, had he established a physical kingdom as Scofield would have it, there would be no cross, no sacrifice for sin..... I realize this sent many into disarray and they had to try and recover. But if truth does not change something in Dispensationalism is terriby amiss.
-
@Dave_L said:
This is straight from the Scofield bible. Moreover, had he established a physical kingdom as Scofield would have it, there would be no cross, no sacrifice for sin..... I realize this sent many into disarray and they had to try and recover. But if truth does not change something in Dispensationalism is terriby amiss.Don't just say it is in the Scofield Bible. Please provide a reference so I can look it up.
-
This error is in the Matthew 5 group of notes in the original version.
-
@Dave_L said:
This error is in the Matthew 5 group of notes in the original version.So I just pulled out my original Scofield (I'm sure you think I'm a heretic since I actually own one) and looked up Matthew 5 and read the notes on the Kingdom of Heaven. Nothing you have suggested is found there. What specifically in those notes are you referencing?
-
Dave,
Please review the OP for this thread.To keep us from going down rabbit holes, review the main factors and players that led to the Reformation. Again, Is this 500th-year event something that demands diligence? If we are not Protestants, what are we? We need to be true to one. This being said, interpretation of Scripture and authority will play a role in the life and practice of the believers.
Notwithstanding, you need to slow down a bit, to see where you are going. The terms thrown out for others to respond must be defined. If you would allow me to identify some of the terms to understand what you want to say or where you're taking this discussion.
If you want to discuss Dispensationalism-- its history, main supporters, and promoters, its doctrinal teachings or apparent spiritual bankruptcy-- May I suggest starting a new thread.
If you want to discuss the 1,000 years ("Millennium") of Rev 20: 1-7, again, a new thread would be the recommendation. We can drill down into the text to see if it's literal or figurative. Above it will help us to understand the justice of God. Everything in the Bible is for our learning and admonition. The two things are connected, but better handled in a separate thread. I hope you see light in what I am trying to say here?
Of course, the key aspects of the Reformation are, surely, welcomed here.
As the terms, you threw out, my general understanding is this?
@Dave_L said:
How in the world do they present a different Jesus?
This could become involved. But for starters let me say the Jesus of Dispensationalism, Post Millennialism, Preterism, or Dominion Theology is not even close to the same Jesus of non millenarianism (Amillennialism).
Dispensationalism -- considered by some to be a man-made doctrine, that goes against the gospel principle. Namely, its teaching shows two different saving gospels by denying that the gospel of forgiveness of sins provides the way of salvation in all periods of history. God would take the church out of the world before the time of tribulation.
Millennialism: derived from the one-thousand-year period of Rev 20 when Satan is bound, millennialism holds that a period of good times is coming. There are now three rival interpretations:
Premillennialism holds that the second coming of Christ will precede the millennium.
Postmillennialism-- holds that the return of Christ will follow the millennium.
Amillennialism holds that the thousand years in Rev 20 is symbolic of the present gospel age.
Preterism-- It's one of the three schools of prophetic interpretation. The hermeneutical principles are:
- Preterism, the belief that the major portion of the book of Revelation was fulfilled long ago.
- Historicism-- the belief that the events of Revelation have been fulfilling all through history, with some having been fulfilled, others being fulfilled, and still others yet to be fulfilled in the future.
- Futurism-- the belief that what is predicted from Rev 4 onward is yet to take place; nothing has been fulfilled, nor will it be fulfilled until just before the end of this age.
Dominion Theology-- The world is not getting worse. Christians will take over the world; so said, David Chilton. This theology holds to the Preterist view in reading the Book of Revelation. It focuses on past fulfillment.
Millenarianism-- It overlaps with apocalypticism. Joseph Wade, with his Clavis Apocalyptica, was viewed as the father of English millenarianism. A millenarian didn't always believe in Christ's imminent return, but many carefully gave attention to the millennium. CM
See "Chiliasm," NIDNTT (1975), 1:52.
See Rodney L. Petersen, Preaching the Last Days: The Theme of ‘Two Witnesses’ in the 16th & 17th Centuries (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 239–47.
