Physical Kingdom Problems
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
-
BOOM there it is.
Wait, what? Seriously? How arrogant is that?
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
That's one of the things Dave is talking about. But when I asked him for one creed he said three forms of unity which is not even a creed but a reference to three separate creeds. Then he said I didn't know that and had to Google it, which I didn't, as if that is even relevant.
Thanks CM for posting these. They straighten out many popular false beliefs today.
It's like talking to a brick....
You should familiarize yourself with these creeds. Especially consider their Amillennial stance.
I have and I don't find them plausible. Just like I don't find Infant Baptism as a replacement for circumcision plausible.
Then you're not Reformed?
Again, those aren't the definition of Reformed Theology. You, again, show that you do not know or understand terms.
These are the creeds of the Reformed Churches.
Again, you are combining terms. And technically those are not creeds they are confessions.
Confessions then
Which are also not equivalent to Scripture. And here is what reformed theology means:
https://www.gotquestions.org/reformed-theology.html
Notice what is not discussed, baptism, end times theology, etc.
Hint, Got Questions is Jerry Falwell's Dispensationalist anti Reformed Arminian clones. OK for history, not for biblical truth.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/
Here is the leading organization in Reformed Theology and notice what they cover in "What is Reformed Theology?" and what they do not cover. It's the same as the other site! Good grief.
But none of the confessions are Dispensational and solidly refute it in their Amillennialism. You are not Reformed unless you are Amillennial or Postmillennial.
For the last time, that has nothing to do with being Reformed. And you just said you can't be reformed unless.... and then you list two opposing positions. Good grief Dave.
-
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
-
@Dave_L said:
But all the promises are yes in Christ, not the Talmud.
What is your understanding of the Talmud?
What does this have to do with what I said above? CM -
@Dave_L said:
They teach the church is Israel. So they reach it indirectly.Yet, that was never the question. Or, at least it was not the question I asked of you which was basically:
"Dave, please could you list (or quote) at three resources that specifically address Romans 11:28 with the interpretation that you hold to." (link)
I also asked:
"please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so." (link) -
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
They teach the church is Israel. So they reach it indirectly.Yet, that was never the question. Or, at least it was not the question I asked of you which was basically:
"Dave, please could you list (or quote) at three resources that specifically address Romans 11:28 with the interpretation that you hold to." (link)
I also asked:
"please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so." (link)“As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Romans 11:28–29)
“For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20)
Notice first that only in Christ are the promises valid. So later Paul says; “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.” (Romans 11:23)
So God's promise remains, but Paul clarifies it for us as pertaining only to the broken off from Israel who accept Christ. In which case they are grafted back in.
Also Paul speaks to the remaining physical Jews of his age since there are none remaining in the biblical sense in ages to come. But as gentiles, God will reattach the elect from among them to the Church during the times of the gentiles.
Most of the Amillennial writers comment on Romans 11:28. Philip Mauro says:
SO ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED
IN my comments on the words, "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25) I pointed out that, notwithstanding that the passage in which those words occur is plainly a prophecy of the state in which the Jewish people were to exist throughout this present age, and that it says nothing whatever as to their state thereafter, it is now commonly interpreted as predicting that, in a future "dispensation," the whole nation is to be healed of its spiritual blindness. The next words of the passage are these:"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, there shall come our of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins.
**As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." (Rom. 11:26-28).
**
This passage likewise has been very badly treated in the interest of the new dispensationalism. And, like as the preceding passage has been transmuted from a prophecy strictly limited to this age into one relating wholly to a future age, so this passage also is lifted bodily out of the age where the Spirit of God has placed it, and is transported to a future age, an age which exists only in the imagination of men. For the passage is usually interpreted precisely as if it read, "And then all Israel shall be saved," instead of "And so all Israel shall be saved."Indeed all that is needed for the correction of this gigantic "dispensational" error is first to note the significance of that little word "so," and then to ascertain its meaning from the context, which is easily done.
The adverb "so" answers to the question "How?" It says nothing at all in answer to the question "When?" Yet my experience has been that, whenever Romans 11:26 is cited by dispensationalists, it is presented as proof that the entire Jewish race, reconstituted into an earthly nation, is to be saved in a future "dispensation." In fact, however, the passage teaches the very opposite; namely: that the phrase "all Israel" means, not the entire Jewish race of a future age, but the entire body of the redeemed of this gospel age. The word "so" occurs in the concluding part of the passage and hence necessarily refers back to the preceding verses, where the apostle, after explaining who they are that constitute God's true "Israel," tells in detail, and illustrates by the figure of the "good olive tree," just how God's Israel was to "be saved." He there describes beforehand precisely what God has been doing from that day to this; and when he finished his description, and has illustrated it with marvellous clearness by the figure of the olive tree, he brings the matter to a conclusion by saying:
"And so"--that is, in the manner he had been describing--"all Israel shall be saved." And he adds that the saving of "all Israel" in that manner would fulfil certain Old Testament prophecies, which he quotes.
If therefore we simply ascertain from the preceding verses (as can be done with little trouble and with certainty) who are the "all Israel" of God's purpose, and how they were to "be saved," we shall also ascertain in the process when they were to be saved.
Philip Mauro. (n.d.). The Gospel of the Kingdom.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
