Any of you seen the movie "left behind"? It is filled with false doctrine, but I believe it is going to shake up casual, non-committed people to the core of their soul. I believe you and I will have our hands full trying to help, and comfort, and teach these folks the truth about the confidence we can have in obeying Jesus Christ. The film is hitting the theatres in a couple weeks, and I believe we need to be ready to address the hearts of those searching for truth. I love you. Bob Lentz

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Answers

I'll take a shot in the dark....."The Rapture??"

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Sam.....

When someone teaches a doctrine that is clearly not supported by N.T. Scripture (and in fact was NEVER heard of until the 1600's)....than that indeed is a false doctrine.

Granted....it may not have the soteriological ramifications of the false doctrine of "faith only"....however....it is a false doctrine....none the less.

To take it further....I have a problem with people who make the claim such as Lahaye...Falwell...et.al......that if you do not believe in the rapture....you in fact ARE NOT a Christian. (Yes...I've heard and read the words from their mouths.)

That is setting a standard of orthodoxy that is clearly unscriptural.

I also do have a problem with many pre-millenial views that in essence...give the Jews a "second chance"....stomp on the sacrifice of Christ by saying that in the millenium Mosaic worship will be reinstituted.....and placing the Jews in favor with God as still "the chosen people."

That, my dear friend Sam.....is damnable and a perversion of the Gospel.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

D.Lee....

You put two quotes of mine together....that should not be put together.

There are some eschatological beliefs that have little soteriological implications.

However, my statement about "stomping on the blood of Christ and giving the Jews a second chance" goes beyond this and clearly indicates my belief, in light of the Hebrew verses and others, that some pre-millenial views do endanger someones salvation, specifically....because it perverts the gospel.

Just thought I should clarify.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Link....

Please do not question how much "I do" or "do not" know about a suject.....because in light of the fact that you do not know me or fully what I do....I'm afraid that statement would come back to haunt you.

You are correct in pointing out that SOME of the church fathers held to a millenial view....BUT IT WAS NOT DISPENSATIONAL PRE-MILLENIALISM.

Simply put.....the doctrine of the rapture, including the word itself are not found in the original Greek. I really don't care "what the Latin says."

Disp. Pre-mill....in fact, does give the Jews a second chance....and in fact, even a different plan of salvation.

In addition to the parable of the dragnet, the parable of the Tare and Wheat completely destroys any concept of a secret rapture.

As per the special place of the Jews....there is none.

Romans 2:28-29: "A man IS NOT a Jew if he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if HE IS ONE INWARDLY; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, not by the written code."

Simply put.....any person is Christ is Jewish in the eyes of God...i.e., Abraham is our spiritual forefather.

Wish I had the time to disucss this.....but a heavy teaching load simply does not allow elaboration.

Michael D. and Mark W. can do a fine job of carrying on the discussion.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

And which false doctrine would that be, Brother Bob?

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

I do not agree with the end-times scenario accepted by LeHaye/Jenkins and the fans of the Left Behind series. I am a strict amillenialist.

But I think there are teachings or ideas that fall into the category of "false doctrine" -- for instance, Modalism, Gnosticism, salvation by works, salvation by faith alone -- ; and that there are some ideas or teachings that fall into the category of "opinion", without falling into "false doctrine" -- non-instrumentalism, one-cuppers, and others. I place most of the differing end times scenarios into this latter category. I disagree in my opinion and understanding and interpretation from them, but I would not declare them to be teaching "false doctrine".

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Sam...

The typical premil. view would espouse that Jesus' original plan was to establish the kingdom when He first came. That was not successful. So the kingdom (yet to be established in their minds)will be established after a series of arrivals here on earth.

Other problems...an arbitrary standard for the hermeneutic of intrepreting whether or not images, numbers, and word pictures in Apocalyptic literature should be taken literal or symbolic.

Also they would limit God's power by stating that a series of events must occur before CHrist can return...namely the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.

So with the operating assumption that God goofed in not establishing the kingdom, no consistent hermeneutic, and the limitation of God's power...why, exactly, would you not call pre-mil false doctrine?

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

Michael,

Good, something we can agree on. You have pointed out several reasons why I no longer agree with the pre-millenial view. And truly it only takes a serious study of the scriptures to find that these things can not be so. And as NO LIE comes from the truth…you are right…this doctrine is false.

Danny says: "I also do have a problem with many pre-millennial views that in essence...give the Jews a "second chance"....stomp on the sacrifice of Christ by saying that in the millenium Mosaic worship will be reinstituted.....and placing the Jews in favor with God as still "the chosen people." And: "Granted....it may not have the soteriological ramifications of the false doctrine of "faith only"....however....it is a false doctrine....none the less."

I grew up on this view, know many that still believe this way. My question is (to anyone)…can this false doctrine become a doctrine that can cause one to loose his or her salvation? Hebrews 10:29 comes to mind…"How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?"

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2001

I have concerns about the pre-tribulation eschatology. I don't see a pre-tribulation rapture in scripture. The scriptures shown to support it don't say anything about a rapture before 7 years.

But the rapture is definitely scriptural. There are many unscriptural views about the rapture, but it is very scriptural to say that htere will be a rapture. Why do I say that? Because the term 'rapture' comes from scripture. Paul wrote of saints being 'caught up' to meet the Lord in the eair, and from what I've read, the word 'rapture' comes from the Latin word for 'caught up' in the Latin translation of this passage. Paul is very clear in his letter to the Thessalonians that they which are alive and remain will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

Frankly, I can understand why a preterist would interpret the millineum in Revelation non-literally. I'm not saying that is right. But I understand why. Revelation is full of apoctalyptic visions, which are often metaphorical. The New Jerusalem in Revelation is a picture of the bride. How often I hear people talking about going to heaven and walking on streets of gold. Not only is the account show the streets of gold after telling about the resurrection at the end of the age, but we also see that the angel was showing John the bride when he showed him the city, which descended from heaven as a bride adorned for her husband. Even when the text is clear that something is a metaphor, some interpret these things literally.

But others go to the opposite extreme, reading allegory into everything. Paul clearly believed in the resurrection of the dead, and some of the more amil preterists do not even believe in a literal second coming or a literal resurrection of the dead. Paul wrote I Corinthians 15 against the teaching of those who said that the dead rose not at all.

Paul delivered Alexander and Hymenaus over to Satan for shipwrecking the faith of some. What did the teach? Did they teach the pre- tribulation rapture? No, theytaught that the resurrection had already come. There are some amil preterist people who teach that the resurrection has already come, though Christ has not returned for His saints and there has been no resurrection of the dead- and no rapture of those who are alive and remain.

Someone wrote concerning pre-mil or some variety there of that it only goes back to the 1600's. Actually, if it is the pre-trbulation rapture that you are talking about, then the dates I've read put it's origin in the 1800's.

But the millineal views are very old. I have a Bible scholar missionary friend who said that the church was premillinealist before Augustine. I should ask him his evidence for this. In Augustine's day, there were some prominent figures supporting the amil view. Eusebius was an amillinealist. Yet he had to admit that disciples of John held to a millinealist view. Papias, if I recall correctly, was said to have been a disciple of John who believed in a millinealist view.

Augustine was very influential. Augustine did not invent infant baptism, but he sure did a lot to promote the view. The RCC still holds to various views put forth by Augustine. Augustine formulated a theology which taught that infant baptism washed away original sin. Therefore, people started baptizing their babies. From what I've read, Agustine was fond of allegorical interpretations. In what little I've read of Augustine, he refers to literal interpretations of the OT as 'letter' thinking of 'spirit' as being more allegorical. (An interpretation of Paul's writing which I think has caused a lot of confusion over the years.) The Reformers were influenced by Augustine. Augustine also, of course, promoted amil eschatology. People in the RM originally came from denominational various backgrounds, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. and inherited amil views from them.

I've read that Augustine interpreted the parable of the good Samaritan to say that Paul was the innkeeper, and other figures get interpreted as being other characters in the story. Think about that. Think about how that rips the interpretation out of the context. There is no longer that smack in the face of the Pharisees and Levites offended by the story, at the idea of the religious men of the Jews leaving a man behind, and a lowly Samaritan helping the man. It's all interpreted allegorically.

Now, think about interpreting eschatalogical prophecies of the Old Testament in a way that has no relation to the audience the prophecy was given to. A prophecy about the future salvation of Israel can be reinterpreted to be a prophecy only about the church, not about Israel. A prophecy originally given to comfort a people about the future of their descendants is totally divorced from context.

I'd like to respond to Danny's comments about Israel being a chosen people. That idea is all throughout the Bible. Israel is a chosen people. God loves all nations, but He chose Israel through whom to reveal His plan. he sent Christ through Israel.

As for the idea of Israel having a 'second chance' and yoru comment about trampling on Christ's sacrifice- i suspect you don't know in detail pre-trib teaching. The vast majority of pre-trib people I've heard teach that salvation is only thorugh Jesus. There might be some people who think there is salvation either through the law or Christ, but those people would be considered to have cultic beliefs byt he majority of the Bible prophecy crowd.

If you think the church replaced Israel, sit down and prayerfully read Romans 11. Those who try to allegorically interpret Israel as the church fall into serious inconsistency in this passage. God will save israel- those people who are enemies for the sake of the Christians, but beloved for the fathers' sakes. Through the fall of israel, salvation has come to the Gentiles. But if the casting away of them be the salvation of the Gentiles, what shall the receiving of them be, Paul asks, but life from the dead? Paul teaches in this chapter that 'all Israel shall be saved.' There is coming a day of salvation for the nation of Israel. There will be national repentance for Israel. Paul warns in this chapter that the Gentile believers are not to say of the Jewish branches that they were broken off so that we might be grafted in. God is able to break off branches that think like that!

Think about this- God is using the Gentile Christians to provoke Israel to jealousy. God is using the church to do this. Paul qutoes from Moses in Romans 10 that God will provoke Israel to jealousy by them that are no people.

God loves Gentiles to, and Me has given us the same method of salvation that He gives the Jews through the Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ. The idea that the church just completely replaces Israel contradicts scripture.

Mark commented about dispensationalists saying that God had to change His plan or something along those lines. Some Dispensationalists are Arminians, and that type of thinking is more common with Arminians than with Calvinists. I've heard Dispensationalists say that God changed His plan. But this type of reasoning is not part and parcel of pre-trib beliefs.

Btw, God repented of making man. He declared that Hezekiah was going to die. Hezekiah prayed and wept, then God gave him 18 years. Moses could not look on God's face, so Moses had to wait until God had passed to get a look at Him. There are a lot of things in the Bible about God that don't fit with modern theological and philosophical ideas.

Mark also wrote that the pre-mil position limits God's sovereignty because it says that a temple must be built first. Well, that is one pre-mil varient, but let's examine your argument about limiting God's soverignty (my words, I'm not online as I write this to read your comments.)

Paul wrote that that day could not come before the revealing of the man of sin. So Paul gave a requirement before certain eschatological events took place. Was Paul limiting God's power? No, He had a revelation about something God had decided to do.

I'm not from a creed-repeating church, but one of those old creeds, Nicene or Apostles, if not both, include a belief in the resurrection of the dead. I suppose some of the more extreme preterists have been able to redefine terms to repeat that with a good conscience.

Btw, do all the amil people on here believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead, yet to come, of whom Christ is the firsfruits? Do you believe that Christ will actually, literally return?

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Link,

Yes, we do believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead - without that, the rest of the faith is really not of much good.

We also believe in a Rapture - not the one most denominations speak of, but the one Paul spoke of in the Thessalonian letter. WHEN Christ returns with the sound of the Trump so that ALL will know, the dead in Christ will rise and those left living will then rise to meet them in the air. This is no secret rapture, but an almost simultaneous happening when Christ appears to all. Scripture, specifically the parable of the dragnet, does not support a "secret" rapture where all the good people are taken away and then the evil are left for later. Jesus said that the bad fish are taken out first and that the chaff is removed from the wheat first.

Of course, Jesus also said in several parables that the unfruitful vine was to be cut off and burned - a reference to the unfruitful nation of Israel who never took the message of God into the world and who brought about the murder of Jesus. They no longer hold any special place in the favor of God. Only those who accept the Son will see Heaven as He is the Way, the Truth, & the Life - NO ONE comes unto the Father but through Him. God loves the Jews, just as He loves all people - but He will show them no favoritism for their heritage - only Jesus has the key.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2001

Danny,

The mainstream 'Bible prophecy' pre-trib dispensationalists I've hear teach that there is one way to salvation through Jesus Christ. if you are going to say that pre-trib dispensationalism teaches two plans of salvation, give some evidence to support your charge. You may be thinking a minority view you've heard of, which other pre-trib dispensationalists would consider to be heretical. There may be some extremist premil people with two plans of salvation out there, but if one believes in premil disp. that doesn't mean he believes in two plans of salvation. Your acusations are no more accurate than if I were to accuse all amil adherants of not believing in a literal resurrection because some amil people believe the resurrection is just a metaphor.

Does an individual Jew get special treatment? Romans 2 tells us of eternal life, or indignation and wrath, which is to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. Paul asks what advantage then hath the Jew or what profit is there of circumcision. Much every way, for unto them were committe dthe oracles of God....

God has made a covenant with the nation of Israel. Israel has not been faithful, but the Bible tells of God's future plans for israel as a nation. One of the Gentile nations was judged in the OT for thinking that Israel was just like the other nations. Paul warns against boasting against the natural branches. God is able to break the one who boasts off as well.

Paul writes of a future time when all Israel shall be saved. The apostles also believed in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. Jesus had already opened their hearts to understand the scriptures. Before He ascended, they asked Him if He would at that time restore the kingdom again to Israel. Jesus did not answer them with an amil explanation of OT prophecy. Rather He told them that it was not for them to know the times or seasons.

God has one plan of salvation for Jews and Gentiles. God has commended them all in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all. But part of God's plan in raising up the church is to deal with the nation of Israel. Remember from the song of Moses, the God would provoke Israel to jealousy by them that are no people? Paul applies this to the church. Paul even hoped to provoke Israel to jealousy by his work among the Gentiles. He wanted Israel to be saved.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2001

andIlikeit,

We DON'T like it. Keep your filth to yourself.

If you want to be here, abide by the rules - keep a civil tongue in your head and make your point with evidence - not vain ramblings.

If you want to play with the big dogs, then act like one. Otherwise, go bury your bone in someone else's yard.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001

Brother Demastus:

I do not have much time at the moment but I just wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to express my sincere joy over having found something upon which we can fully agree! I am extremely gratified to see you take a stand against this doctrine! AMEN! Premillienialism is definately a false doctrine. It is a doctrine that originated in the vain imaginations of men and not from the word of God. ANd it is a doctrine that is indeed dangerous to the souls of men. I do not have the time to support my last statement but I will return to discuss the details later. But this pernicious false doctrine completely denies that the KINGDOM of Christ has been established upon the earth and that we have been "translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the KINGDOM of the Son of His love." (Col. 1:13). and is with us even now and will be with us until the return of Christ when he will "deliver the kingdom" up to God the father.

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to point out the falsity of this pernicious doctrine. As I have the opportunity I will write to show just how false, pernicious, and deadly this doctrine is and how that it can cause men to be lead away from our Lord Jesus Christ and thus lose their souls.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 18, 2001

E. Lee,

Do you know where that part about the one thousand year reign comes from? It comes right out of the book of Revelation- from the Bible!

I don't blame you for disagreeing with the pre-tribulation rapture theory, but if millenialism is a terrible heresy, you are accusing early believers of being heretics.

-- Anonymous, January 18, 2001

I posted this elsewhere, but it deals with this topic:

Many pre-tribbers call for a 'literal interpretation' of scripture. I can understand why they want this, since so many amil people have applied Augustine-influenced allegorical methods to scripture.

But no one that I've ever met really interprets Revelation literally. It's obviously full of metaphors. That's is the nature of these kinds of apocalyptic visions in scripture.

Actually, the pre-trib rapture view does not really take a 'literal' interpretation of Revelation in one area which I believes makes the pre-trib doctrine inconsistent with itself.

Remember in John when Jesus said blessed is He who takes part in the first resurrection?

Well, toward the end of Revelation, we see Christ return and the beat and false prophet thrown into the lake of fire,and Satan put int he pit. Then we see the FIRST RESURRECTION after the description of Christ returning.

Let us think about this. According to Paul, the dead in Christ will rise first, and then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

A straightforward, fairly literal reading of Revelation has the FIRST RESURRECTION taking place after or about the same time as the return of Christ. But the pre-trib rapture theory has the rapture taking place 7 years BEFORE the tribulation. From scripture, we know that the dead in Christ will rise first.

So either pre-trib rapture people are not following a 'literal' chronological interpretation of resurrection, or they are teaching that there is going to be a resurrection seven years before the FIRST resurrection.

Let's think about it. Where in Revelation is there a resurrection or rapture before the return of Christ? I don't see it. I do see the FIRST RESURRECTION, and no mass resurrections before this.

On a slightly unrelated topic, the 'literal' interpretations of non-literal passages can causeproblems at some times. I've heard many preachers talk about goint to heaven _when they die_ and walking on streets of gold.

In Revelation, the angel offers to show John the bride. Then he shows him a giant square city, which descended as a bride adorned for her husband. The apostles names were on the parts of the city. Considering that this city is a picture of the bride, isn't it possible that we will BE streets of gold or something else inthat city, in a spiritual sense, rather than walk on streets of gold? Also, preachers talk about walking on streets of gold after they die, as if their disembodied spirits will walk on streets of gold.

The Bible really doesn't say much about 'going to heaven when you die' thought that is a popular thing to talk about in evangelistic messages. Lazarus awoke in Abraham's bosom. Paul wrote of being absent with the body and present with the Lord, but the Bible repeatedly refers to the _resurrection_. Paul wrote of the hope of the resurrection. Modern evangelical preachers talk about the hope of heaven. Jesus talked about going and preparing a place, so that He might _come again and recieve us unto Himself._ There isn't much talk of going to heaven when we die in the Bible, and there is a lot more focus on what occurs at the end, the resurrection, the judgement, etc.

I wonder how much Greek beliefs about the dead influenced Christian popular thought about the matter. Maybe some amil ideas teaching which deemphasized or even denied the Second Advent of Christ contributed to the focus on death and heaven as opposed to the resurrection judgement at the end that Christ and Paul taught about.

It may be that a lot of preacher's ideas about heaven is not much more scriptural than the angel shows which have dead people come back as angels.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

Andilikeit,

Jesus forgave sinners who came to Him in humble repentence. That doesn't mean God forgives every prostitute or drug user. Jesus said, unless you repent, you will likewise perish.

Jesus' name was called Jesus because He came to save His people from their sins. That is found in the gospel of Matthew, at the end of the first chapter. Notice that Jesus came to save His people FROM their sins. He didn't come to save His people IN their sins.

God is a holy God, and if you have sinned against Him, you deserve to be punished for your sins. But God offers a way of salvation for sinful humans who cannot save themselves through Jesus Christ.

Andilikeit, think of how other people perceive your actions. Imagine that a group of friends and aquaintences are sitting in the park talking about a serious topic. Suddenly a complete stranger plops down next to them and cussing at them and accusing them of not knowing what they are talking about. How do you think the people sitting in the park would react to this stranger. This is how you are behaving, but a lot of people lose self-restraint when they are hiding behind a PC.

If you want to have a real conversation, act in a polite manner. There aren't many rules around here, but one of the rules is not to use profanity. You are allowed to have a difference of opinion, but you will be expected to offer some support for your views. I often disagree with people on this forum about many things, but no one has run me off, yet? Why? Because I know how to have a civil conversation without cussing people out.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

Brother Link:

You have asked me the following:

“Do you know where that part about the one thousand year reign comes from? It comes right out of the book of Revelation- from the Bible!”

As I explained to Brother Demastus, I did not have time to write about the details of what I intend later to discuss concerning this subject. Therefore I have not even begun to offer reasons for what I have said to him. Nevertheless, as a brief response to your question I must point out that the Pre-millennial doctrine asserts that there will be a literal “thousand year reign of Christ ON THIS EARTH”. They do not merely assert a “thousand year reign”, as your words seem to imply. You will not find a single place in the entire scriptures that teach that Christ will reign ON THIS EARTH for a LITERAL 1000 years. Now many false and pernicious doctrines come “right out of the Bible” after one has taken the raw data “right out of the Bible” and wrongly wrested it out of it’s context and perverted it. This is exactly what has been done with this false doctrine. You will not find a passage in the entire Bible that states that Christ will reign a literal 1000 years ON THIS EARTH. In order to find such a doctrine on must “wrest the scriptures to their own destruction” as Peter pointed out that many people had done in his day. “…even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15,16). Those who teach these highly speculative and completely unscriptural doctrines do in fact find “scriptures” which they can “wrest” to their own destruction. But just because the phrase “and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” and “the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished” and “but they shall be priest of God and of Christ and shall reign WITH HIM a thousand years” are found in Revelation 20: 4-7 does not justify those verses to be wrested out of their highly figurative setting in support of the absurd speculations of a literal reign of Christ, in His physical presence ON THIS EARTH for a thousand years. And it is indeed extremely misleading to assert that these verses which mention a “thousand year reign” actually thereby teach “pre Millennialism”. For they say nothing whatsoever about the major points of such a doctrine such as a literal reign of Christ ON THIS EARTH on a literal throne set up in the city of Jerusalem. To assert such is nothing short of assuming as true what has not been said at all

No one, least of all me, has denied that Revelation 20 talks about a “thousand year reign”. But I deny emphatically the false doctrine that deceivers for centuries have read into those verses. For they have created a fanciful notion of a literal reign of Christ ON THIS EARTH on a LITERAL THONE in the city of Jerusalem and many other fanciful and false “details” and implications that are not even remotely mentioned or supported by anything found in the scriptures. They jump off from this point and leave the word of God and mix it with their imaginary “raptures” with people “vanishing” as they drive down the road in their cars and much more. And many of these think of little else than their theories, which they add to the word of God. They start with the words “thousand year reign” and draw from those words a "literal reign" on the earth on a literal throne in Jerusalem. And they add and add and add and add until they have a completely humanly fabricated doctrine that denies much of the truth taught elsewhere in the scriptures concerning the kingdom of God, the church and the salvation of the souls of men. And remember the warning of the author of the Revelation, which says, “if any shall add to the words written in this book God shall add to him the plagues written in this book”. Let us also be aware that those who take away from the word s of this book God will take his name out of the book of life. (Revelation 22:19,20).

All of the above items I do not currently have the time to discuss in detail, as I told Brother Demastus. But when I have the time I will demonstrate just how Pre millennialism does pervert the truth, the church and the very gospel of Christ. Until then, there is no need to attempt to leave the impression that my statements thus far were made simply because “E. Lee Saffold is ignorant of the fact that the Bible mentions a thousand year reign of Christ”. Especially is this true when you know that such simply is not the case.

But, until I have the time to go into these details I will simply ask everyone to read the 20th Chapter of the book of revelation and see if they can find ALL THAT IS TAUGHT concerning the pre-millennial theories in that place. You will readily see that their doctrine is not there at all. All one can find of their doctrine there is a “thousand year reign of Christ” but they do not find a “literal thousand year reign” assumed by these false teachers. All of the rest of their doctrine concerning that thousand year reign is just nothing more than the figment of their human imaginations and a perversion of the truth taught in the word of God about these matters. And I warn everyone that perverting the truth is a dangerous threat to your spiritual well being!

Then you say:

“I don't blame you for disagreeing with the pre-tribulation rapture theory, but if millenialism is a terrible heresy, you are accusing early believers of being heretics.”

Now, Brother Link, anyone who has read the New Testament knows that among those who were living during the days of the apostles there were also those who were in fact “heretics”. “Now I beseech you brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling , contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.” (Romans 16:17). “He that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject”. Now, if there were heretics in the first century why would one be surprised to find some heretical doctrines taught among the “early believers”? So if a doctrine is heretical then all who believe and teach it were heretics. And it does not matter which century they lived in and whether they are “early believers” or “late” ones!

But those who are so apt at perverting the words of the inspired apostle John are just as capable of perverting the words of those “early believers” also. In fact, I suspect that those who have so perverted the inspired words of the apostle John in the Revelation have also found it essential, in the same way, to pervert the words of the early fathers as well. And many faithful men have been accused of believing and teaching this false doctrine just because they mention a thousand-year reign of Christ. But just because one believes in a thousand-year reign of Christ that does not make him a Pre-millenialist, now does it? But let me also point out to you that “who” is guilty of believing a certain doctrine is no measure of whether it is true or false. If it is taught in the scriptures then we should all believe it, if not we must reject it as false. Most Pre- Millenialist will claim that any one that so much as even mentions “a thousand year reign” is an adherent of most if not all of their pernicious theories. This is what they have done to the apostle John in the Revelation and we have no reason to suspect that any other “believer”, early or late, is safe from such unjust treatment from Pre-Millennialist.

Christ is coming again and of that day and hour knoweth no man. Let us all faithfully serve him so that we can say with the beloved apostle John, “even so come Lord Jesus”. And let us not be diverted from preaching the gospel of Christ toward wasting our time with false theories of men who love to speculate far more than they desire to serve and obey Christ.

Brother Link, I am extremely happy, and thankful to our God that you were not harmed or injured in any way by the recent bombings in Indonesia. I prayed for you and continue to do so that our Lord would watch over all the saints in that place.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

Lee,

Thanks for the kind words about the Lord's protection duringthe bombings. I appreciate the fact that you have prayed for me. I have prayed for you also. Fortunately, there were no bombings in the town I was in at the time. This country, Indonesia, really needs prayer. It is the largest predominantly- Muslim country in the world.

You wrote, >>>Nevertheless, as a brief response to your question I must point out that the Pre-millennial doctrine asserts that there will be a literal thousand year reign of Christ ON THIS EARTH. They do not merely assert a thousand year reign, as your words seem to imply. You will not find a single place in the entire scriptures that teach that Christ will reign ON THIS EARTH for a LITERAL 1000 years.<<

Lee, look at verse 9. After the thousand year reaign, Satan is released, he goes out and deceives nations who go to attack the saints. In verse 9, we clearly see that the setting for this is the EARTH.

Also, remember the beatitudes? The meek shall inherit the EARTH. If the earth will 'melt with fervent heat' immediately upon the return of Christ, then how could the meek inherit it? Doyou think the world will get better and better until Christ returns, with the meek in control?

Also, take a look at thsi passage:

Acts 1:6-7 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus had already opened up the hearths of the apostles so that they could understand the scriptures, and there they go asking a non amillenalist question like that. Did Jesus rebuke them for thinking that He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Did he tell them they had it all wrong and that the promises to Israel were really amillinealist, non-literal metaphors about the church.? No, he told them it was not for them to know the times or seasons.

Wouldn't it be unlike Christ to refrain from sharing with His dear apostles, whom He sent to teach correct doctrine to the world and to disciple the nations, to withold the amil view of interpreting the OT prophecies they were referring to, if indeed the amil view were correct? Wouldn't it be unlike Christ to allow the disciples to continue on at this point thinking that Christ would literally set up a kingdom over Israel? Jesus said that it was given unto them to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.

The OT contains many prohecies about what God would do for ISRAEL in the future. In the first few centuries of Christianity, many Gentile Christians grew to distrust the Jews because of their antagonism to the Christian faith. Many Jews still do not believe, though now the number of those professing to be Christians far outnumbers those known to be Jews.

In the centuries after the apostles, it became popular to interpret scripture in highly metaphorical ways. Origin thought there were different levels or ways of interpreting scripture, with the literal meaning being on a lower level, and a moral or allegorical meaning being on a higher level. Augustine, who was influenced by philosphy, also thought highly of allegorial interpretation. In his confessions, he even makes references to certain literal interpretations 'bringing death' to him, thinking of them as the letter. Augustine was a powerful force in popularizing allegorical amillineal interpretations of the Bible, and also the idea that infant baptism washes away original sin.

From at least the second century, there were Christians allegorically interpretting passages of the Old Testament that dealt with Israel. Maybe one of the reasons for trying to make the Bible have no promises to the physical nation of Israel, and apply them all to the church was motivated by the fact that the Jews were so antagonistic to the Christian message. Maybe you've heard of Chrystosom's harsh words against the Jews in the 300's.

But the Bible already warned the church about this kind of attitude. God warned the Gentiles (compared to wild branches) not to boast against Israel (compared to natural branches.)

Romans 11:18-21 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

But yet, what do we have? There are plenty of people who believe in 'replacement theology' who teach that promises that God made to Israel in the OT are not real promises to Israel, but rather metephorical prophecies about the church. Hmmm, Paul warned the Gentile Christians about thinking they replaced the Jews. But these promises were actually made to the nation of Israel in reponse to certain things going on. Some of the prophecies were made to the nation of Israel about a glorious future when they were going through a time of suffering.

Look at what Paul writes concerning Israel, using an OT prophecy about Israel to refer to actual Israel:

Romans 11:25-29 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

According to Paul, God still has a plan to save Israel. Israel will be ssaved through the Messiah (not a separate plan of salvation.) They won't be saved through 'the works of the Law.' Zechariah prophecies of a time of mourning that Israel will have for Him whom they have pierced.

Some try to make 'Israel' in the OT refer exclusively to the church. But a study of Romans shows the problem with this view. Paul uses a prophecy about 'Jacob' to refer to the nation fo Israel, not the church. It is pretty clear in the verse above, because these people were enemies concerning the Gospel at the tiem Paul wrote his epistle.

Also, Paul, in interpreting Moses uses Moses' prophecy from God using Gentiles to 'provoke them to jealousy.'

Romans 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

God is using the church to provoke Israel to jealousy. Paul doesn't say that OT uses of the word 'Israel' refer exclusively to the church. In fact, this OT prophecy refer to what would happen in the church. God took foolish Gentiles and made a 'nation' out of them, and His light is in that 'nation'- the church. Jesus prophesied that the kingdom of God would be taken fromthe Jewish leaders and given to a _nation_ bringing forth the fruits thereof. So the church is not "Israel" or "you" in this prophecy, but rather that other nation. Now there are Jews in this other nation, but 'the rest were blinded.'

There are many prophecies inthe OT about the future kingdom of Israel. So, on the day of judgement, do you think God would give the Jews a big excuse to argue before Him, "You promised us a future kingdom throughout the Hebrew Bible." Many amil interpretations of the OT take the prophecies to Israel and apply them to the church, leaving the Jews, supposedly, without these promises. This is done in spite of the fact that God was making promises to Israel in response to a current situation. Whern israel was in bondage, God sent prophects with messages of future glory. Some of the amil interpretations rip the prophecies right out of that context, and apply them exclusively to the church.

What does this have to do with eschatology? There are many prophecies which are yet to be fulfilled. If the amil belief that Jesus would return and there is no fulfillment of all these prophecies to Israel (interpreting them all as mere metaphors) then the Jews don't get the fulfillment of the promises made to them.

The premillenial view accounts for these promises made to Israel.The amil view consigns themto allegory- at least the versions of it I am familiar with. If you want 'church restoration' don't just reject Augustine's beliefs on infant baptism, reject his eschatology as well.

I'm no expert on church historical writings. From what I've read, there were saints in the first century, like Papias, who if memory serves me correctly, was a disciple of John, who believed in a literal millineum. I read the first half of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in high school, so the details are a little fuzzy. I tried to look it up on the web. Maybe I'll try again for quotes. Fromwhat I recall, Eusebius, an amillinealist, though of Papias as a saint, but also as someone who was uneducated (didn't the Sanhedrin think the same of John.) Papias believed in a literal millineum, Eusebius the amillinealist even admited, and so did others in the circles associated with the apostle John. That would place the premil view in the first century. I'm not talking about heretics who divided the church, but those considered to be faithful members of the church and disciples of an apostle.

The earliest reference to amil views I know of is about 130 or 150 AD.

I'm not an expert on eschatology either. But I sure don't see how the amil view lines up with an interpretation of the prophecy that is honest to the Jews.

Let me close with a reference to the eschatalogical future at the council of Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders of the church, even as late as the Council of Jerusalem, were still looking forward to the restoration of the tabernacle of David. James saw that a prophecy concerning this future work of God also made reference to Gentiles on whose name the Lord would be called:

KJV Acts 15:16-17 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

What an interesting verse fo rthe subject at hand. The church had been Jewish, then Gentiles started coming in. I've read that a significant percentage of those in the Jewish community in the first century were Gentiles who had joined themselves to Israel through circumcision. But the council of Jerusalem realized that a Gentile did not have to become a part of the nation of Israel to be righteous. Righteousness came through Jesus Christ.

Then James used scripture to show a prophecy of Gentiles on whom the name of the Lord would be called in the future.

P.S. I don't believe in a lot of the 'pop theology' about the rapture, etc. Think about how your rhetoric against the pr-trib view comes across to someone who holds to that view. Instead of arguing what the passage means, you say you'll do that later, and just write paragraphs of rhetoric about how bad the premil views are. I am the one with a verse from the bible that speaks of Christ reigning for 1000 years. If you have some reason for me not to take the verse at face value, then show me. But rhethoric and talk of how bad the 'face-value' interpretation of the verse is, without arguments to back up your position are annoying and make your position look weak.

For example, this looks like double talk:

"And it is indeed extremely misleading to assert that these verses which mention a “thousand year reign” actually thereby teach “pre Millennialism”. For they say nothing whatsoever about the major points of such a doctrine such as a literal reign of Christ ON THIS EARTH on a literal throne set up in the city of Jerusalem. To assert such is nothing short of assuming as true what has not been said at all..."

Keep in mind that there are also a lot of OT promises to take into account.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

I was mistaken. Justin was not amil in this views. Rather, he considered some views which were similar to some of those who told to a variety of the amil preterist views, which did notbelieved inthe resurrection butbelieved in just daying and going to heaven, to be heretical. Justin Martyr lived around 150 AD.

I suspect the title was written by a later "Catholic" who wanted to label Justin's views as controversial.

Chapter LXXX.-The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It.

And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies? "

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly,311 that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware;312 but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you.313 For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth],314 and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristae,315 Galilaeans, Hellenists,316 Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years317 in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2001

Brother Link:

You have asked:

“Lee, look at verse 9. After the thousand year reaign, Satan is released, he goes out and deceives nations who go to attack the saints. In verse 9, we clearly see that the setting for this is the EARTH.”

Brother Link, if you and any other Premillenialist would simply try to keep the words of scripture in their context you would not make these egregious errors that you have made in your above statement. If you had paid attention to the context you would have learned that the things that happened in verse 9 was put after the “thousand years had expired” (verse 7) which does not help your idea of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth at all. And all of this is even if one were to take everything in the twentieth chapter of Revelation strictly in a literal sense! Therefore there is nothing in verse nine that says anything whatsoever about a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth for it is talking about Satan being loosed “when the thousand years expired”. That would be after the so-called millenium and therefore after the so-called "reign of Christ" of verse four which talks about certian saints "reigning with Christ" and says nothing about the place of His reign. And notice that even in verse nine God destroys them from "heaven" rather than Christ destroying him from earth. There is not the slighest indication that the saints described in verse four who were reigning with Christ, nor Christ himself, are even among the saints on earth who were persecuted by Satan after the thousand years "EXPIRED". Thus, as I stated before there is nothing in Revelation 20 that even remotely teaches that Christ will reign on the earth from the city of Jerusalem with a rebuilt temple of Solomon for a literal thousand years. You cannot find such a notion in any verse in this chapter and least of all in verse nine which is describing events which are described as taking place “WHEN THE THOUSAND YEARS EXPIRED and Satan was loosed out of his prison. (Verse 7). Therefore, you still have not found a single place where the scriptures speak of a literal thousand- year reign of Christ on this earth in the city of Jerusalem on a literal throne and a literal rebuilt temple of Solomon. You will not find it because it simply is not there to be found, even if we were to grant you that every word in the Revelation 20 was literal in every sense of each word in the chapter you cannot find this nonsense in Revelation 20. We have every reason to doubt that much of this chapter is not literal and cannot be taken as such but you could not find the false doctrines of pre-millennialism even if every word in this chapter were taken literally.

Now concerning the “reign of Christ” anyone reading this verse, even in a literal sense, could see that this passage is talking about a reign “with Christ” of certain saints that were “beheaded”. Let us read and think for a moment about what is said in Revelation 20:4. “And I saw thrones, and they that sat upon them, and judgement was given unto them: And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (Rev. 20:4).

These “souls” were not bodies and were not embodied. They were souls. And a resurrection is not necessary for souls to live. These souls lived- but they did not “begin” to live in Revelation 20. They LIVED. These same souls were “under the altar” in chapter six of Revelation and now they are “on thrones” in chapter 20. In chapter six a cause has suffered an apparent defeat. In the twentieth chapter that same cause has been crowned with victory. They lived and reigned- taking their souls out from under the altar and elevating them to thrones is referred to as a resurrection- the resurrection of a cause that had previously been perceived as a lost one. These souls lived in the cause for which they died.

Lived and reigned- if “reigned” is limited by a literal thousand years, “lived” is also thus limited. So if the “reigning” ends with a thousand years, the “living” ends with a thousand years, which would not be a very hopeful millennium after all!

The fundamental principle of exegesis forbids that the thousand years be interpreted literally here and the word “year” symbolically in the rest of the book beside. So, if it is literal, the reign of Christ was for a thousand years ONLY, not one day more or less. And, if it is literal, since both verbs “lived” and “reigned” are modified by the thousand years, when they ceased to “reign” they ceased to “live”. Furthermore, if literal, only those beheaded or were persecuted lived and reigned. And finally, the third personal pronoun “they” cannot be changed to the first personal pronoun “we”; and the verb of past tense “lived and reigned” cannot be changed to verbs of future tense “shall live and reign”. And if “they” cannot be changed to “we”. And if the past tense “lived and reigned” cannot be put into the future with “shall live and reign” they cannot even remotely imply that anyone other than those mentioned in this verse would be a part of the so-called millennium yet in the future. This would leave you and me and all others out of this “millennium” that these false teachers are telling everyone to expect in the future. The simple conclusion is that there are just too many difficulties in the way of a literal application of this passage.

In this regard the words of Robert Milligan are very reasonable and I quote them for all to consider concerning this literal interpretation of the thousand years of Revelation twenty:

“ When we say that this language is symbolical we simply affirm that it is similar to other parts of the Apocalypse. Very few persons, we presume, will insist on a strictly literal interpretation of this passage. That an angel, in the ordinary sense of this term, will ever descend from heaven, and literally lay hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil and Satan; that he will bind him with a literal chain of gold, silver, iron, brass, or any other kind of materials; that he will literally cast him into the bottomless pit and lock him up, as a culprit is confined in a jail or a penitentiary; that during the period of his imprisonment the souls of the martyrs and of those who had not worshipped the beast and his image will sit on the literal thrones, and literally reign with Christ, while all of the rest of the dead slumber in their graves; and that the expiration of the one thousand years the literal chain will be literally taken off Satan, the doors of his prison opened, and he be permitted thus to go out once more to deceive the nations. This we presume rather too literal for anyone.”

I agree with this estimation, and one does not go far in discussions with premillennialist until he finds that the literal interpretation of these verses are too much for even them to accept. For even they do not think that Satan is a LITERAL dragon or serpent. Nor do they see that he could be bound with a literal chain of physical materials and they must avoid a literal interpretation in order to change the actual reading of this verse from the third personal pronoun “they” to the first personal pronoun “we”. And they cannot change the verb of past tense “lived and reigned” to verbs of future tense “shall live and reign” without saying that these words include “us all” in some metaphorical sense. For in their literal sense they exclude all of the saints except the ones spoken of in this passage. Watch these men, brethren. For they will be very “literal” about this thousand years but when a literal interpretation goes against their theory; then they can suddenly understand and explain how the scriptures use metaphors and other symbolic language to state spiritual truth. And especially is this true when we speak of prophecy.

But I recommend that all read the entire context and see just how much of pre-millenialism they are able to actually find there.

As to the notion of taking these words in Revelation twenty literally one can readily see by a simple casual reading that the very notion is beyond reason, common sense and the generally accepted rules of language.

Link, as I stated before, I do not have the time at the moment to discuss these details. And I only wanted to express my appreciation to brother Demastus for standing against this false doctrine and I promised to discuss the details of this issue at a time when I have sufficient leisure to do so. Now, I know that it “annoys” you. But your attitude is a matter of your own choice. I chose to express my opposition to something that I consider being a dangerous and false doctrine and mentioning that I will return to discuss it in detail. This is my right and my saying it “annoys” you. It is fine for you to be “annoyed” if that is the attitude that you chose for yourself. But it is purely ignorant to willfully choose to BE ANNOYED and then blame others for your own choice as if we in some strange way INFLICTED that annoyance upon you. We did no such thing. You willingly, of your own free will choose to be annoyed and if you do not like the consequences of such annoyance then learn to chose a better attitude, one more favorable to your health and spiritual well- being, in the future.

Be that as it may, you should know by now that annoying false teachers is not something that gives me great concern. And though I like you very much, I do not like the false doctrines that you teach. And as long as you teach them you will on occasion hear from me and you will have to decide if you will chose to be annoyed or simply ignore what I have to say or try patiently to deal with it. But your response is your choice and your responsibility. If you do not like the way you feel about something then change it rather then blaming others for it. If you cannot change it then live with it.

I am beginning to write about the consequences of Pre-millennialism and will post it in the forum for the benefit of all that love the truth. And in that, as well as separate posts, you will find much to consider about your other questions. For now I simply must go back to my work.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

E. Lee

>>> So, if it is literal, the reign of Christ was for a thousand years ONLY, not one day more or less. And, if it is literal, since both verbs lived and reigned are modified by the thousand years, when they ceased to reign they ceased to live. <<<

That is illogical.

Suppose I said that my friend worked in a factory and swam on weekends for four years. If, after four years, the man stops working at the factory, can you conclude that the man doesn't swim any more? I suppose you COULD come up with such a conclusion, but it sure wouldn't be logical. Being 'literal' has nothing to do with it.

If I say that my friend worked at a factory for four years, just in terms of logic, that statement says nothing about whether he continued to work for the factory the fifth year. Generally, if someone says that a man worked at a factory for four years, others will assume that he did not work there the fifth year. But this concept is not denoted by the phrase 'for four years.'

Furthermore, you assert that both 'lived' and 'reigned' are 'modified'-as you put it- by 'a thousand years.'

The KJV reads, "and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. "

Notice the comma after 'lived.' Where is your evidence that the KJV translators are in error.

Btw, where did I say that the book of Revelation can be read completely literally? Of course it can't. It is apocalyptic literature.

The more strict literalists don't interpret everything literally anyway. The principle they follow is to interpret literally unless context dictates otherwise.

As for 'souls,' even in English we use 'soul' to refer to individuals at time. 'Not a soul was sleeping.' Similarly, there are examples in scripture where 'soul' refers to an individual.

From Revelation 20 alone, can I prove the millineal reign of Christ on earth? No. Eschatology involves interpretting different passages of scripture. Take a look at the quote from Justin Martyr above. It is necessary to look at the writings of the prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel to learn about the future kingdom on earth. For example, when in history was the land divided as Ezekiel prophecies? When was the temple rebuilt according to that prophecy?

One thing I object to about amillinealism is the method of interpreting scripture. Let's think about it. The prophets prophesied about the future of their own nation. God made promises about the future kingdom to Isralites in exile. In the first century, many Jews believed in a future kingdom in actual Jerusalem with the actual Messiah leading the actual nation of Israel. There were Old Testament prophecies about God doing a work in the people of Israel.

The 12 apostles no doubt had heard about the coming kigdom, and they expected a kingdom on earth in Israel. Jesus opened their hearts to understand the scriptures. Then, when He was ascending, they asked him about restoring again the kingdom to Israel. Did He say their views were all wrong and that they needed to accept an allegorical amil view of scripture? No. He told them it was not for them to know the times or seasons.

After the ascension, many Jews receive the Gospel, but many more reject it. Paul and others took the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the number of Gentile Christians began to grow. Paul wrote warning Gentiles not to boast against the Jews, thinking the Jews were broken off, that they might be grafted in. (early reference to replacement theology?) He wrote to them of salvation in part happening to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and the future salvation of Israel. So then in the 100's, maybe 70 or so years after the apostles, we _still_ ahve people believing in a future millineal kingdom. Christians associated with the circles around St. John believed in an actual literal earthly kingdom. Justin Martyr's quote above seems to imply that he associated those who did not believe in the coming kingdom in Jerusalem (and the coming resurrection of the dead- something some amils do not literally believe in) with false sects of his day.

So, we have the Jews of the first century believing in a coming kingdom in Jerusalem, the apostle believing in it, Jesus telling the apostles that it was not for themto know of the time of the establishment of the kingdom of Israel, Paul warning Gentiles about caliming they replaced the Gentiles, and then second century writings of Christians who still believed in these things.

So then we have a rise in popularity of allegorical 'spiritualizing' interpretation in the late 200's with Origin, who also believed in literal interpretation of passages as well.

Then, we come to the 300's, where Augustine promotes infant baptism, 'allegorical' interpretation of Scripture, and amil eschatology.

Back to Revelation 20- about the resurrection of the beheaded saints, you do point out a problem with taking the passage strictly literally. Some might take the beheaded saints as a type of believers who died in Christ and still remained. I think many just overlook the point. I met one perosn who believed inthe resurrection of 'overcomers' but that doesn't seem to fit with Paul's writings to the Thesalonians.

But if you look at the passage that mentions 1000 years, at the end of that period of time, the earth is still around. Where do premil people get the idea of Christ reigning _on the earth_ from? From the Old Testament. Also, notice that the creation has not melted with 'fervent heat' at this point of the story.

Considering all the prophecies of the future kingdom, the attitude of the disciples in Acts 1, the response of Christ, and then interpreting Revelation, the idea that the kingdom on earth will be set up for 1,000 years makes sense.

Is it possible that the 1,000 years is ametaphor and not necessarily 1,000 years exactly? God knows the answer to that. So if I allow for that possibility, does that put me in the amil camp? No, I believe that this milineum, whatever it means there, is yet in the future. What I disagree with about the amil theology i've encountered is the allegorical interpretation which robs the Jews of their promises. There are even some amil people who take their view of things to the full extent and don't believe in the literal resurrection of the dead or the literal return of Christ. I wonder if there were seeds of this in Justin's day, and if those were the people he was wary of.

And Lee, I pointed out to you that accusations without logical arguments is annoying. You try to turn that around to somehow try to blame me for something.

If you have time to write long repetitive nonesense like that, then spend that time instead to write a substantial argument to support yoru position. You claim you odn't have time to do this, but yet you find the time to make accusations against premil teachers and yet you have the time to write nonesense like this:

". It is fine for you to be “annoyed” if that is the attitude that you chose for yourself. But it is purely ignorant to willfully choose to BE ANNOYED and then blame others for your own choice as if we in some strange way INFLICTED that annoyance upon you. "

sophistry. Why is it that you are able to make your points about scripture relatively short, but when you write inflamatory drivel like this it is extremely long and repetitive?

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Link,

Since you obviously believe strongly in the fact that the Jews still have special favor with God and that He is going to establish a special 1000 year kingdom for them - would you please read and exegete for us Galations 5:1-6.

I look forward to see how you can merge your thoughts with that passage and still be scripturally accurate.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Bob,

Back to your original question. No I have not seen the movie. Many people are talking about the book series that I believe this movie comes from. There are several books in the series which is not completed yet. Several denominations in this area are showing the film to their folks (which I have heard is illegal btw).

Have you seen the film? I am just wondering if it is very much different from others like it. I watched at least one or two when I was a kid/teenager that scared the daylights out of me. I have found that that kind of thing reinforces the beliefs of the ones who believe in such. I don't see any kind of exodus from the denominations happening due to this type of film. Has the film been released yet, and have you had occasion to speak to any of these "non- committed people" who have seen the film?

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Mark,

Paul went into the temple partly to quell the controvery against him, including allegations that he taught Jews not to circumcise their children.

The Galatians passage is written to whom? The Galatians were non- Jews, celtic tribes of Gentiles. If they had been circumcised in response to the teaching of false teachers who said that they needed to be circumcised to have God's favor, then they would have fallen.

Before Paul, I think i've read that maybe 1/8th of people following the Jewish religion were proselytes. Some Jews felt that they should proselytize Gentiles so that they might be saved.

Christ came and died, according to the Scritpures. The church recognized from the OT that Gentile nations could be saved. They did not need to be joined to Israel to be saved. Salvation for Jews and Gentiles came not through justification through keeping the Law, but rather through faith in Jesus Christ.

Yet the early Jewish Christians were able to participate in temple worship- including Paul. Many try to read their own theology back into Acts, thinking Paul was in error by participating in temple worship.

Think about some other examples in Acts. Paul did not circumcise the Gentile Titus, and says that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

Paul realized his freedom in Christ, but he taught Christians to be open to those with weak consciences. Think of the issues in Romans 14- observing days, not eating meat. perhaps Jews were concerned about kashrut. The meat could have been offered to an idol you know, and were keeping the sabbath. Those who realized that nothing was unclean in itself were to receive those who had other opinions as these others had been accepted by Christ.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Link,

Thanks for the explanation, though I do see a few flaws in it.

There were indeed false teachers in Galatia. They were the Judiazers who were teaching that These Christians should observe all of the Old Testament rules along with obedience to Christ in order to secure their salvation. Paul flat out says that it was a damnable doctrine & those teaching it were to be consigned to hell (anathma).

In several of his letters, Paul makes it clear that it was ok to fast, abstain from meat, observe festivals, etc. but that it was done only for conscience sake and was not to be bragged about or held out as THE standard.

But I must assume that these applied to ALL Christians, not just Gentiles. I say that because where else in scripture does God establish a double standard like this. Why would God "wink" at the Jews who still reject Him to this day, by showing them special favor, while the Gentiles that reach to Christ for salvation are considered as "second-class" Christians.

As I see it, Christ died for all, PERIOD. All those who accept Him are "joint heirs in Christ" and will be "adpoted as sons" with Him by God. We know that Jesus is "The Way, THE, Truth, & THE Life; no one comes to the Father but through Him", therefore those who remain outside of Him have no hope - that MUST include the unbelieving Jews or else Jesus was a liar.

The Jews have the same chance as everyone else does right now - turn or burn. The writer of Hebrews says that we are in "these last days", so one can believe that nothing new is going to be offered - not to the Jews, not to the Gentiles, and not to the Martians or any other critter.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Also,

"God is no respecter of persons." This again confirms that God does not hold any kind of double-standard. Therefore He cannot show favoritism based on heredity or standing.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Paul preached the Gospel to Jews first when he went into a city. He would preach in the synagogue. If people there rejected the Gospel, the disciples from the synagogue would continue learning from him, and he would begin to focus his ministry on the Gentiles. (No doubt, with God-fearers in the back of the synagogue hearing him as he preached, he often had some gentiles who were already interested.) On one occasion, when many Jews in one synagoguge resisted his message, he told them that it was right that the Gospel be preached to them first, but now he would preach to the gentiles, and they would hear it.

We see this as a pattern in Paul's ministry. In Romans, Paul even says that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentiles in Romans 1. In chapter 2, he shows that both reward and punishment from God will be to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

God offers the same way of salvation for Jews and Gentiles, 'for there is no difference.' Peter uses that God is no respecter of persons principle in Acts 10 when he realized that God received Gentiels that worked righteousness. Individuals are saved through the same Gospel, whether these people are Jews or Gentiles.

But God deals nto only with individuals, but also deals with nations. Israel is a covenant people. G od has made a covenant with him. The Jews that have rejected the Gospel are still under the Law. They are circumcised and are required to keep the whole Law. Those who have rejected Christ the curse that falls on those who do not keep the Law. (Some Gentiles were having themselves circumcised, and puting themselves undeer this obligation as well.) Also, notice that the Law commands to harken to the Prophet like unto Moses- the Messiah.

Jews taht do not accept Christ and do not keep kosher are violating the Law. Jews that are circumcised and do not keep other ordinances of the Law are breaking the Law. Those who are in Christ are not under the Law.

I agree that there may have been Gentiles Christians who observed Jewish feast days. I believe this was possible without the person losing his salvation. If he trusted in the Law instead of Christ, then he was in trouble. however, considering what Acts says about Jewish Christians being zealous for the Law, I suspect that the issue was Jews (and perhaps Gentile prostelytes and God-fearers) observing certain things from the Law.

I do believe that Israel is still a covenant people. Romans 11 tells us that the Jews who rejected the gospel are still beloved for the sake of the fathers, though they may be enemies concerning the Gospel. (Some Jews were spearheading persecution against those who believed inthe Gospel.) God didn't welch on His promises to Israel as a nation, though unbelieving Israel has been unfaithful to God.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

I share your view of false doctrine, whether it is by design or of other means it can not be. THE BIBLE MUST MAKE SENSE. The left behind view does not. Their will be a rapture, but not during the "tribulation". The rapture must come when christ returns, and the left behind veiwonly adds to the truth in the book. He said I come as a theif in the night, all the world will be waiting for a rapture that will not come(as they think), and if it did happen as the left behind view state, then he sureley would not be a theif in the night. This book as the bible entire, must be read with the intent of understanding every word, not just the ones which catch attention. From Genesis to Revelation the key is every word.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001

Amen brother Luke, as Gods word says a powerful delusion. Left behind is a money making machine wich is not Gods word. We must trust in Christ til the wonderful day of his appearing. The rapture is a great deception and believed by those whose ears are being tickeld!!

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

lex,

The rapture is in the Bible. Rapture is from the Latin word for 'catching up' and refers to the verse that says that those who are alive and remain will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

Pre-tribution rapture teaches that this will occur before a 7 year tribulation period. I tink that is the teaching you disagree with.

Btw, I am still waiting for E. Lee's support for his amil views. I'd apprecaite comments on the messages I've posted above about the history of the development of the amil view and the ancientness of the pre-mil view.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

hold on yall... i have not seen the movie yet, but instead of focusing so much time and energy on this debate, why dont we focus our time and energy on pleasing the one who matters??? Jesus Christ will judge all of us, just because we may have different ideas on the rapture or whatever doesnt mean we are not christians and we have no right to determine who is a christian or not.. God sees all of our hearts and in the end hes the one who's going to decide if your left behind or not.

if the movie is teaching what is not in the bible nor has ever been in the bible, yes i would def say its false. but the point im trying to make is just because they are indeed teachig it does not make them not a christian. God is looking at their hearts amd motives, if he chooses to accept them he will, if not he wont..

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001