How important is the Millennium?

[alt731]

In my view, the millennial reign of Christ is a massive deal, and those who don't believe in it (or believe that it stands for something like Christ reigning now for a long time) are hoping for the wrong future. Indeed, they have misunderstood massive chunks of the Old Testament, and have many errors in their notion of the Kingdom of God, and of the position of the Gentiles and the Jews in God’s thoughts.

I have found that pre-milenialism seems to be the position of teachers I think highly of, such as John Gill and Fred Phelps (who I consider to be very orthodox on many things; and if you listen to his Old School Baptist Hour radio programs from the 1980s, your view of him might change). So, do other people find that they tend to like those teachers who hold the same millennial views as them?

BTW, do people here at PredestNet realise that pre-milenialism seems to have been the view of pretty much everyone in the first few centuries of Christianity? Also, who has actually *read* Joseph Siess's book Apocalypse? And what did you think of it?

One more thing: I read someone say that pre-mil is synergistic. Can someone explain this to me?

[Craig kennedy]

In my view, the millennial reign of Christ is a massive deal, and those who don't believe in it (or believe that it stands for something like Christ reigning now for a long time) are hoping for the wrong future. Indeed, they have misunderstood massive chunks of the Old Testament, and have many errors in their notion of the Kingdom of God, and of the position of the Gentiles and the Jews in God’s thoughts.

I have found that pre-milenialism seems to be the position of teachers I think highly of, such as John Gill and Fred Phelps (who I consider to be very orthodox on many things; and if you listen to his Old School Baptist Hour radio programs from the 1980s, your view of him might change). So, do other people find that they tend to like those teachers who hold the same millennial views as them?

BTW, do people here at PredestNet realise that pre-milenialism seems to have been the view of pretty much everyone in the first few centuries of Christianity? Also, who has actually *read* Joseph Siess's book Apocalypse? And what did you think of it?

One more thing: I read someone say that pre-mil is synergistic. Can someone explain this to me?

alt731 writes:

"One more thing: I read someone say that pre-mil is synergistic. Can someone explain this to me?"

Can you please QUOTE EXACTLY who actually said this and where this is recorded?

Also, can you please state the THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT in which this assertion was apparently made?

In Christ, Craig

[alt731]

Hi, yes. To be honest, I don't quite understand the context myself. It appears to be just thrown in there with a whole lot of other stuff.

Calvinistic premillenialism
It's been a long while since I have been around this forum, and it is nice to be back. In the meantime we have left our church (that we loved dearly) due to irreconcilable differences and complete insanity on the part of the pastor. So, we have been visiting various churches in the area over the past two months in hopes of finding a fellowship that we can be part of. Since we have a kid now, I don't think that self-study/ family/ internet fellowship is an acceptable alternative to fellowship with local believers.

We have checked out some of the independent reformed baptists, and keep running into this weird thing. At three churches the elders or pastors say that they are 5 point Calvinists, but also hold to a premillenial or dispensational eschatology. I guess that John MacArthur's influence in this area has become widespread (at least 2 of them were educated at Master's Seminary).

So this leads me to a question. Is it possible to be a consistent dispensationalist or at least premillenial without holding to synergism? If so, can you point me to a resource so I can better evaluate whether these are people that I might want to fellowship with?

Last edited by Dorcas; 04-16-2008 at 01:39 PM."

[Robert R. Higby]

BTW, do people here at PredestNet realise that pre-milenialism seems to have been the view of pretty much everyone in the first few centuries of Christianity?

Most of the well-published teachers in the first few centuries of 'christianity' taught the free-will heresy of Justin the Martyr. You have the antichrist doctrine of salvation taught by the Shepherd of Hermas and Tertullian. Then there is the onset of Neo-Platonist philosophy which reached its mature expression in Gus of Hippo. There are the purely Greek fathers like Clement of A. and Origen who were Gnostics in sheeps clothing. Why do the views of teachers in the tradition of the great apostasy matter?

The only teaching of the 'fathers' that matters at all is the expose of the Gnostic heresy by some (i.e., Irenaeus). Tertullian is viewed as the one who systematically reformed the doctrine of the Trinity. Well and good, I'm grateful for that but he was a false teacher on every other possible issue, especially the doctrine of salvation.

[Robert R. Higby]

'Synergism' has two separate meanings in this context, soteriological and eschatological.

In salvation it is the notion that God and man both 'work together' in the process. God does His part, man does his part. Without both it cannot happen.

In eschatology it is the notion that during a future millennium, there is a mixture of flesh and spirit. Immortal saints dwelling on the earth with mortal sinners (Talmudists) who have been given a 'second chance' at salvation.

[alt731]

In eschatology it is the notion that during a future millennium, there is a mixture of flesh and spirit. Immortal saints dwelling on the earth with mortal sinners (Talmudists) who have been given a 'second chance' at salvation.

O I see. Thank you for explaining that. Well, I certainly don't believe in second chances. Indeed, I don't believe in first chances. Jehovah saves. To the best of my knowledge, scripture never says he gives anyone the "chance" of being saved from their sins and trespasses through the blood of Jesus. Of course, scripture doesn't say what will happen exactly in the millennium, but that's no reason not to believe in it. After all, we aren't told exactly what will happen in the new heavens and new earth.

[Robert R. Higby]

On the millennium, I am convinced in the Holy Spirit it is the chiliast who is in high-handed disobedience of scripture. A good book to reference is Robert Whitelaw--"The Gospel Millennium and Obedience to Scripture". I think I have summarized Whitelaw's NT arguments here before & will do it again if any are interested. The book can be ordered on Amazon.

While God's people are indulging in sin and wickedness; while they are backsliding and doing evil, the Spirit never simultaniously testifies to their own salvation; and thus, while they are indulging in sin, they have no assurance from the Spirit. They may, of course, have fake, fleshly assurance (but this is not the same thing).

1. There is no doctrine of "backsliding" in the New Testament.

2. The Spirit never ceases to testify to assurance of salvation in the souls of the elect, even in the midst of the worst act of sin (David included). Even Bunyan was wrong on this one! Once eternal life commences in the soul with the gift of faith in the gospel, there is no loss of an adoptive relationship with the Father on the basis of Christ's rightness.

3. The "joy of salvation" that David prays for God to restore is not the same thing as the "assurance of salvation". The latter has to do with fundamental conviction and the former with a spirit of jubilant celebration. It is true that a person cannot celebrate his/her salvation to the uttermost while indulging in deliberate acts of sinful rebellion against what God has commanded.

--Robert

[Robert R. Higby]

I do not believe in the pre-tribulation rapture (of the dispensationalists).

Great to hear it! At least we agree on that, you are not one of the money grabbers who profit from this doctrine!

We are told in Paul’s letter to the Romans that God has stripped away the Jews so that the Gentiles might be grafted in. We are also told that the Gentiles will, at a future time, be stripped away and the Jews will be re-grafted in.

By Jews you mean 'Talmudists', as all chiliasts believe. Not the Judaism of God's election in the Old Testament, that is dead and gone forever as it was grafted into the body of Christ fully in the 1st century. Biblical Judaism is no more, except as it has been incorporated into the elect body of Christ.

You cannot cite any scripture that the Gentiles will be stripped away; that is a doctrine of devils.

[Saint Nicholas]

The posts that deal with Assurance of Salvation have been removed and placed in a new thread entitled "Assurance of Salvation".

Nicholas

[alt731]

Hi,

Just to add in something I said about the Millennium which got lost in the thread change:

Let me also challenge you on another issue:

I used to believe that there was no Millennium. But now I believe that the Old Testament can hardly be read without encountering it. I do believe with many amillennialists (such as Hendriksen) that there shall be a great tribulation before Christ comes back. However, I do not believe in the pre-tribulation rapture (of the dispensationalists). We are told in Paul’s letter to the Romans that God has stripped away the Jews so that the Gentiles might be grafted in. We are also told that the Gentiles will, at a future time, be stripped away and the Jews will be re-grafted in. The Jewish believers did not disappear by rapture last time, and I do not think the Gentile believers will disappear by rapture either. I do, however, hold that when the Lord Jesus comes back, believers shall be caught up in the air. This too is something that many read a millennialists believe in; it is not, however, something that many unread amillennialists believe in.

In a fascinating piece of research, F.F. Bruce, the noted Bible scholar, found that the word used for the second coming ("parousia") and the word "meet" ("apanthesis"), as in, "meet him in the air" (1Thes.4:17) in the Greek, have this vital link: "When a dignitary paid an official visit (parousia) to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and escort him back on the final stage of his journey was called the apantesis." So, Christ will return, the saints will be raptured up to be with him in the air, and they shall escort him back down to earth where he will be with them forever. At this great wedding, a supper shall be laid down for them; all the armies of the earth amassed against Christ shall meet their total destruction. Their corpses shall be fed to the birds, who will eat up their rotting bodies. We are told in Scripture the first thousand years of Christ's reign on earth, shall be with "a rod of iron". Jesus said that to his faithful servants, he would give charge over many cities. God’s perfect and holy law will be vindicated. He shall smite those who disobey (as rulers are meant to do), and ordain his saints to "rule" over the heathen; referring not so much to authority in and of itself, but to the exercise of authority over the disobedient; such as, "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity"[1Tm.3:4]; also used in the OT to refer to the punishment upon disobedient Eve, "and he shall rule over thee"[Gn.3:16] meaning, "because you have sinned, you shall be disciplined, and the one with responsibility to do this is your head" for Christ is the head of women by way of men, just as God is the head of men by way of Christ who is in charge of disciplining them. In like manner, the saints shall rule over the nations, as all the Old Testament prophesies have it; Christ shall use the "rod of iron".

We are told that after a long period, Satan shall be released so that he might be finally thrown into hell that the Lord’s word might be totally vindicated; for even after a thousand years of peace, the peoples of the earth shall still reject Christ. But unlike last time (2000 years ago), when, after the Kingdom had been been invaded (by the Romans) and conquered, the people of Israel killed their King: This time, when the armies come to invade they shall be destroyed, and when the peoples try to kill their King, they shall be consumed with fire; and Satan, who failed to kill Jesus last time, shall neither be killed by Jesus this time (Jesus will not even bother with him; he will send an angel shall to cast him into hell). So it is that the end of days shall come, when the earth and heavens shall be made new; and God shall dwell with his people for all eternity in the person of Jesus Christ, in the continuing Kingdom. And the wicked shall be outside the holy city in a fiery chasm in the depth of the earth (the eternal gehenna), and they shall be tormented day and night, and shall plead with the elect for mercy, but no mercy shall enter that place.

Believe it or not, I came to this interpretation primarily on the basis of the New Testament, not the Old, and that, after carefully researching the matter. I read three books on the subject, all from different perspectives. I read Hendriksen's book The Bible on the Life Hereafter, which strongly defends amillennialism and attacks pre-millennialism. I also read a book by a noted dispensationalist and a book by a pre-millennialist. (A recommended book is Seiss's Apocalypse: The best printing is by Kregal, (yr. 2000) paperback, ISBN 978-0825437977). I considered carefully every verse of the New Testament used to defend the notion that the earth shall pass away within minutes or hours of Jesus' return, and I considered those verses which are taken to imply that Satan was sent to the pit at the cross, so as not to deceive anymore those gentiles who would otherwise have believed in God (a frankly ridiculous interpretation which contradicts everything the scripture teaches about salvation by grace alone). I also considered interpretations of Old Testament prophesy which see them as having a non-earthly fulfilment. However, I do not see the kingdom of heaven as in any way staying in heaven. We read, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth". The kingdom of Israel is that kingdom of God. I believe that both Jew and Greek will one day live in that kingdom (as one people), and that God's kingdom shall never cease. It shall pass from this earth to the next earth (an event that, again, amillennialists who have studied the matter, and pre-millennialists' also, actually agree upon). When Jesus was asked, "will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel" he did not respond by telling them that the kingdom was in heaven and that they had not understood a thing he had told them. Rather, he responded by telling them that it was not for them to know the times that the Father had set (Acts1), implying that the kingdom would be restored to Israel at a future time.

At that time the righteous shall reign over the wicked, and all things shall, at last, outwardly be subject to the Lord. The fact is that the devil was thrown down to hell at the cross; for the victory was won at the cross and the elect were saved at the cross. But the outward manifestation of these things was future in both cases. I agree that in the day that Jesus returns, the earth shall pass away (2 Pt. 3:10). But this will not happen until the day is completed, and the thousand years are up! For when amillennialists quote the passage in Peter which says, "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise" (2Pt.3:8) they try very hard to separate it from the fact that two sentences earlier Peter had said, "beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2Pt.3:8). God's people will rule with him and are even now to sing, "Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight" (Ps. 101:5-6). These are not only the words of Jesus, of whom this Psalm supremely speaks, but also of the rule of the saints, who will reign with the Lord! For the same Psalmist, in speaking of the rule of the Lord, sings, "I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O Jehovah, will I sing. I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I wicked person I shall not endure." (Ps. 101:1-2) Thus we see that all scripture is unified in asserting the Kingdom of God come to earth, and the reign of the saints with Christ over the heathen and those who had no time for him.

All those amilenialists who say that the supposed, "millennium" is only mentioned once in scripture, need to examine the Old Testament to see if they can find where it explicitly mentions the second coming of Christ; and perhaps that will put the matter in perspective for them. The millennium is much a part of our Old Testament as is the second coming. It is implied at various points, and I believe that those who reject this doctrine must have misunderstood significant portions of scripture.

Just to repeat, Seiss's Apocalypse is very good on this matter, whether you are a premillennialist or not. (The best printing is by Kregal, (yr. 2000) paperback, ISBN 978-0825437977). This was not one of the 3 original books I read on the issue when I first started looking into it. It was one I discovered since, and it is by far the best.

[Robert R. Higby]

Millennium is not mentioned once in scripture, it is mentioned 0.

"I do believe with many amillennialists (such as Hendriksen) that there shall be a great tribulation before Christ comes back.'

Hendricksen is deficient as a theologian, as well as most Reformed teachers. Stick with Whitelaw. The Reformed tend to present the kingdom of God as present only (equated with Rev. 20) and not continuing as a real reign of Christ and the saints after the final Advent of Christ. Terrible teaching!

The great tribulation is the reign of the man of lawlessness, which was already looming (at work in principle) when Paul wrote 2 Thess., ascended fully before his death, and has been with us ever since. It is not a future reality only.

The teaching of future opportunity of salvation for the Talmudist is the only basis of chiliasm--always was, always will be.

[alt731]

Stick with Whitelaw.

Thanks for the recommendation. I searched google for "Whitelaw", and came back with 1st Viscount William Whitelaw, the British politician. Which Whitelaw should I be looking for?

[I'll type my main response at the weekend.]

[Robert R. Higby]

"Robert Whitelaw" "The Gospel Millennium" -- do a search.

[Robert R. Higby]

One more observation: There is no clear indication in scripture of the exact TIMING of the events of the last day. The realities to occur in the eschaton are part and parcel of eternity future: the last judgment (vindication of the elect and condemnation of the non-elect) is eternal and not something that takes place in a moment or a 24 hour period immediately after Christ returns.

The 1000 year apocalyptic imagery in Revelation is there for only one purpose--to separate the resurrection of the just and unjust QUALITATIVELY in God's plan. It is pictured as a 1000 year period where Christ and His people reign in resurrection life while the wicked live not, however, this is APOCALYPTIC history and not real history. It tells us nothing about what will actually unfold literally at Christ's final return in terms of a sequence of historical events in the age to come.

The Pauline doctrine of resurrection applies to the elect only; that always needs to be kept in mind when studying this issue. Interestingly, I have NEVER seen ANY interpreter of Revelation 20 consider the fact that Paul's doctrine of final resurrection excludes the non-elect. Yet every teaching of the last Advent of Christ in Paul only mentions the resurrection of the just--the reprobate are mentioned only to state that they will be consumed at His return (no mention of the resurrection of the damned).

[MikalMonergist]

Whitlaws book is most excellent!!! We carry it in our tract rack and book table. However, he, like those "founding fathers" hold to heresy! Whitlaw holds to an annihilation of the lost instead of eternal punishment!

And there is a difference between historic pre-mil and dispensational premillennialism! The later you cannot find prior to the 1800s but the former you can. While I hold to a gospel millennial view, I find myself in much agreement with many historic pre-mills. The major issue for me is where the middle wall of partition has been torn down, dispensationalist want to build it back up. The NT overwhelmingly shows and defines what the OT prophecies meant, leaving no need for a futuristic interpretation of an ethnic or nationalistic Israel being brought to a fulfillment of many OT prophecies that are yet to be delivered!

And as far as Christ ruling now for a long period. Peter tells us in the book of acts that David's seeing his heir sitting upon the throne was the very resurrection of Jesus! So if the NT enlightening of that OT prophecy says it was the resurrection that was Christ's ascending the throne, why am I to look for a descending then reascending?

Much more to say about the dispensational view, but gonna leave with a question, does anyone have a definitive verse proving a pre-tribulational rapture of the "church"? I have grown up in a pre-trib pre-mil dispensational home and church and I have yet to find that teaching in God's Word!

[Highlyfavored]

...does anyone have a definitive verse proving a pre-tribulational rapture of the "church"?

Hi Mikal, most of us hold to a Historicist/Amillennial position, so we would be hard pressed to give a proof text for a position many of us believe to be false.

Greg

[Robert R. Higby]

No definitive verse! The definitive passages are the many teaching the exact opposite of pre or mid tribulationism!

Whitlaws book is most excellent!!! We carry it in our tract rack and book table. However, he, like those "founding fathers" hold to heresy! Whitlaw holds to an annihilation of the lost instead of eternal punishment!

On the eternal torment vs. annihilation debate, I no longer firmly support either position. The teaching in the 'Two Ways' document of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS), though containing certain speculative details on the future punishment of the reprobate, is the closest to the overall biblical view in my estimation (which stands between the positions). Morey's 'Death and the Afterlife' is so full of false arguments (based on 'Hellenistic Rabbinic' Judaism and the 'church fathers') that I can't begin to count them, though I might do a review of the book someday when I can get around to it.

Traditional Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers would view as heresy a lot of things we stand for here at P-Net! I don't call Whitelaw, McCulley, Fudge, and other proponents of final extinction heretics any more than I call those who teach the traditional view heretics (for that reason, anyway).

there is a difference between historic pre-mil and dispensational premillennialism! The later you cannot find prior to the 1800s but the former you can. While I hold to a gospel millennial view, I find myself in much agreement with many historic pre-mills.

I agree that the pre-trib rapture view (except a few very doubtful snippets) cannot be found prior to the 'Morning Watch' era of Irving, MacDonald (1829ff), and Darby the 'copy-cat' of the Irvingites who transformed the teaching into his own version. However, dispensationalism (as distinct from pre-tribulationism) has been alive and well from the first century on! The Jerusalem apostles believed in it, were slow to leave Jerusalem because of it, and were not inspired of God to write scripture until they left it (and Jerusalem)!

Most historic premillennialism still holds to a doctrine of further salvation opportunities for the Talmudist during a fleshly millennium, which is as false a doctrine as any could be.

As I have stated, I differ with historic amillennialism on 2 critical points:

1. The kingdom = Rev. 20:1-8 (the reign of Christ and the saints pictured in Rev. 20 is only one aspect of the kingdom, the kingdom in its entirety is forever and ever)
2. The timing of the resurrection of the unjust (nothing in the scriptures teach it will happen immediately and in total when Christ returns--only that it belongs to the final day of the Lord which is initiated at the final Advent).

--Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

This passage is used by both conditionalists and traditionalists to prove their respective positions, since it contains elements of both:

“And the visitation of all who walk in this spirit shall be a multitude of plagues by the hand of all the destroying angels, everlasting damnation by the avenging wrath of the fury of God, eternal torment and endless disgrace together with shameful extinction in the fire of the dark regions. The times of all their generations shall be spent in sorrowful mourning and in bitter misery and in calamities of darkness until they are destroyed without remnant or survivor.” (1QS, Geza Vermes translation)

[Myrddin]

The Millennium is hugely important. It's the Golden Age (aion) the Jews were all looking forward to (e.g. Acts 1:6). When Jesus said they (goats) will go to eternal punishment but the righteous to eternal life, the word aionios should not have been translated 'eternal'. A better translation would be, "These will go to the punishment of The Age, but the righteous to the life of The Age." This passage, so popular with damnationists since Augustine and before, though it talks of severe judgment, had nothing to do with a supposed eternal Hell, a concept not found in the Scriptures.

But if you conveniently ignore the millennium, you start assuming that the heavenly immortal kingdom arrives right when Christ returns, and you lose this element of the way God executes judgment on goats.

Oh, it's also hugely important because it's when we saints begin to reign.

[Robert R. Higby]

The fact that so many are concerned with preserving Chiliasm as a primary concern is only evidence of a generation that wants to fight the war where there is no gospel battle (Luther), which is mere flight and disgrace if such persons flinch at the REAL gospel issues which now threaten a thousand year retreat into darkness.

BTW, do people here at PredestNet realise that pre-milenialism seems to have been the view of pretty much everyone in the first few centuries of Christianity

YES! We believe they were part of the great apostasy away from the gospel that Paul prophesied would occur after his death! However, it was not EVERYONE, praise God!

Once again, the focus of every Chiliast is this: future opportunity of salvation for Talmudists who evidenced nothing but reprobation prior to such 'millennium'. Talmudists (NOT the true seed of Abraham) whom the scriptures proclaim are reprobates with no hope of salvation ever.

Pre-mil is synergistic for two reasons:

1. Two separate peoples, one saved completely by God's grace apart from law and another people saved in a synergistic mixture of grace and Judaistic works-based assurance in order to obey their covenant with God.
2. A hybrid mixture of people in the Spirit (eternally glorified without spot or wrinkle) and people in the Flesh (who will visibly rebel against God once again in the end).

I really am tired of Chiliasm as an issue, let's get back to the gospel!

--Bob