The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't think literal-ness is the be-all end-all argument for how-to-use the Bible. Even with passages that ARE literal, we see that the other writers of the Bible take them and apply them to their own lives and current events. I find a better standard is, "does it agree with the rest of the Bible?" i.e. Does the lesson here also occur elsewhere? If so, then we're probably on the right track. If not, then we are probably in the ditch.

Well that is what the literal does!

But one must remember the warning of Peter:

1. 2 Peter 1:20
   Knowing this first, that no prophecyof the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2. 2 Peter 1:21
   For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When a Scripture writer made an application of a passage they showed it was an application and not a redefining of the historic event. I have taught the book of Jonah many many times and when I have, I have made many many applications from the literal truth of Jonah once again, an application is not an interpretation

 

[Rich R]

Well that is what the literal does!

But one must remember the warning of Peter:

1. 2 Peter 1:20
   Knowing this first, that no prophecyof the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2. 2 Peter 1:21
   For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When a Scripture writer made an application of a passage they showed it was an application and not a redefining of the historic event. I have taught the book of Jonah many many times and when I have, I have made many many applications from the literal truth of Jonah once again, an application is not an interpretation

What is it about a literal translation that would say anything different than what you said? I'm not aware that a literal translation would discount either an application nor an interpretation.

Sometimes I wonder if either side (literal/allegory) actually understands the premise of the other side. But an even more fundamental consideration might be, why not consider that within each side there is a wide variation in specifics. Why put either side into a straitjacket?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What is it about a literal translation that would say anything different than what you said? I'm not aware that a literal translation would discount either an application nor an interpretation.

Sometimes I wonder if either side (literal/allegory) actually understands the premise of the other side. But an even more fundamental consideration might be, why not consider that within each side there is a wide variation in specifics. Why put either side into a straitjacket?

Well I was writing about literalists.

But an allegorist, in a very brief summation say something like the following:

"I know the Bible says this, but it really means this. '" or They will take a true account like Jonah and make it just a story and use what we can apply form the true account of Jonah and make that the literal.

Teh allegorical also for the most part holds to covenant theology which tends to be post millennial or amillennial and believes in replacement theology.

This is a very brief summation of a very deep difference between teh two hermeneutics and the mindset is behind each.

 

[Phoneman777]

An often overlooked aspect of amillenial vs premillenial is the method of interpretation.

Neither is correct, since Jesus arrives to collect the dead and living saints as the living wicked "from one end of the Earth even to the other end of the Earth" drop dead in their tracks and litter the Earth "at the brightness of His coming" and join the rest of the dead "until the thousand years were finished" which is why they are not "lamented, neither gathered or buried" - while we reign with Christ above at "My Father's house" until New Jerusalem comes down and the wicked are called forth from death, and we all stand like separated "sheep from the goats" - us on the inside of the walls and the wicked on the outside.

 

[Wick Stick]

Well I was writing about literalists.

But an allegorist, in a very brief summation say something like the following:

"I know the Bible says this, but it really means this. '" or They will take a true account like Jonah and make it just a story and use what we can apply form the true account of Jonah and make that the literal.

Teh allegorical also for the most part holds to covenant theology which tends to be post millennial or amillennial and believes in replacement theology.

This is a very brief summation of a very deep difference between teh two hermeneutics and the mindset is behind each.

Like I said to Rich earlier... there aren't actually any people who are 100% literal OR 100% allegorical. We all are degrees of both.

The main thing, I think, is not to VOID the literal meaning in order to assign an allegorical one. And vice versa - just because something is literal doesn't mean it can't also be part of a type/antitype, or that we can't learn from it by allegorizing it.

 

[Rich R]

Neither is correct, since Jesus arrives to collect the dead and living saints as the living wicked "from one end of the Earth even to the other end of the Earth" drop dead in their tracks and litter the Earth "at the brightness of His coming" and join the rest of the dead "until the thousand years were finished" which is why they are not "lamented, neither gathered or buried" - while we reign with Christ above at "My Father's house" until New Jerusalem comes down and the wicked are called forth from death, and we all stand like separated "sheep from the goats" - us on the inside of the walls and the wicked on the outside.

I could misunderstand your post, but I as far as I can tell, I think it is fairly premillenial.

Of course there is always the problem of exactly what the terms "amillenial" and "premillenial" actually mean. It seems as though there is a lot of variations of each in the minds of those who hold one view or the other.

 

[Rich R]

Well I was writing about literalists.

But an allegorist, in a very brief summation say something like the following:

"I know the Bible says this, but it really means this. '" or They will take a true account like Jonah and make it just a story and use what we can apply form the true account of Jonah and make that the literal.

Teh allegorical also for the most part holds to covenant theology which tends to be post millennial or amillennial and believes in replacement theology.

This is a very brief summation of a very deep difference between teh two hermeneutics and the mindset is behind each.

Got it! I misunderstood you at first. Thanks for the clarification. I like the succinctness of how you describe allegory.

 

[WPM]

There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land

It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method. He was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.

It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.

That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. With few exceptions, it wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.

This is not true. This is lies. When are you going to provide evidence or delete this? Have you studied the ECFs in depth? Why not back up your claims. This sounds like you've simply taken this information off a Premillennial website. Most of them are totally untrustworthy.

 

[Rich R]

This is not true. This is lies. When are you going to provide evidence or delete this?

Could you be more specific as to which part is not true?

Have you studied the ECFs in depth?

Haven't studied them at all. This is the first time I heard about it. I'll check it out though

Why not back up your claims.

This is something like the 50th post I've made backing up my claims. How much more should I do?

This sounds like you've simply taken this information off a Premillennial website. Most of them are totally untrustworthy.

Have you seen me quote from any website at all? 95% of my posts contain liberal amounts of scripture. The rest are side comments on one thing or another.

 

[WPM]

Haven't studied them at all. This is the first time I heard about it. I'll check it out though

Where did you get your evidence?

1. Where is your historic evidence that "There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus"?
2. Where is your historic evidence that "It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced"?
3. Where is your historic evidence that "It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method"?
4. Where is your historic evidence that Origen "was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria"?
5. Where is your historic evidence that "The avowed purpose of that institution (the School of Alexandria) was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures"?
6. Where is your historic evidence that "That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD)"?

 

[Phoneman777]

I could misunderstand your post, but I as far as I can tell, I think it is fairly premillenial.

Of course there is always the problem of exactly what the terms "amillenial" and "premillenial" actually mean. It seems as though there is a lot of variations of each in the minds of those who hold one view or the other.

I looked up the meaning of "amillennialism" and it basically reads like stereo instructions. My take is that the competing beliefs are that the "millennial reign of Christ" is either invisibly now here on Earth, visibly on Earth after Christ returns to Earth, or visibly in heaven with the saints after He's done with His ministry in the Most Holy Place.

 

[Rich R]

Where did you get your evidence?

1. Where is your historic evidence that "There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus"?
2. Where is your historic evidence that "It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced"?
3. Where is your historic evidence that "It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method"?
4. Where is your historic evidence that Origen "was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria"?
5. Where is your historic evidence that "The avowed purpose of that institution (the School of Alexandria) was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures"?
6. Where is your historic evidence that "That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD)"?

I don't blame you for not taking my word on all of that. But it wouldn't be very hard for you to verify if you want. All of it's well accepted among church history scholars. It's pretty much all over the internet. But, if you have evidence that any of it is wrong, I'd be glad to look it over. I'm always open like that.

To avoid misunderstanding, I'd like to clarify what I meant by the problem supposedly being solved by Augustine. The problem was that the allegorical method had no standards. By using allegory anybody could make the scriptures say whatever they thought they should say. Each individual became their own standard instead of the plain sense of the scriptures. So who was to be the final authority on what was the correct allegory? It really was a problem. Well, Augustine solved the problem by saying the Roman church was the final authority. I suppose that's changed by now, but I'm not sure who the final arbitrator is as to which allegory is the right one.

 

[Rich R]

I looked up the meaning of "amillennialism" and it basically reads like stereo instructions. My take is that the competing beliefs are that the "millennial reign of Christ" is either invisibly now here on Earth, visibly on Earth after Christ returns to Earth, or visibly in heaven with the saints after He's done with His ministry in the Most Holy Place.

I think that's a pretty good big picture. That's the way I see it anyway. But I also know there are sects within sects within sects...!

 

[WPM]

I don't blame you for not taking my word on all of that. But it wouldn't be very hard for you to verify if you want. All of it's well accepted among church history scholars. It's pretty much all over the internet. But, if you have evidence that any of it is wrong, I'd be glad to look it over. I'm always open like that.

To avoid misunderstanding, I'd like to clarify what I meant by the problem supposedly being solved by Augustine. The problem was that the allegorical method had no standards. By using allegory anybody could make the scriptures say whatever they thought they should say. Each individual became their own standard instead of the plain sense of the scriptures. So who was to be the final authority on what was the correct allegory? It really was a problem. Well, Augustine solved the problem by saying the Roman church was the final authority. I suppose that's changed by now, but I'm not sure who the final arbitrator is as to which allegory is the right one.

But this is the whole basis of your argument and of this thread. This thread is absolutely moot until you support your claims with hard historic evidence. This was one of the overriding reasons I took it upon myself about 12 years ago to research the ECFs in depth - Christians quoting erroneous opinions that they never researched and never verified. This is exactly what the same people do with their theology - they just swallow what they are taught without verification. They are gullible. They cannot think for themselves. What they believe is man's teaching, not biblical truth.

Truth should matter to Christians because they possess the Spirit of truth. Regardless if history cuts across our own understanding, or what we have been taught, we should still have an inner desire to know what is right, and to establish the facts. But some of the most blinkered and deceived people who quote history, are actually Bible-believing Christians. Even when you show them the facts, they still want to hold on to their deception.

Many historical accounts are biased, ill-researched and devoid of hard detailed evidence. They are lazy investigation. A sweeping opinion or the quoting of the opinion of another lazy “expert” seems to be the norm.

We hear the term “fake news” used a lot over recent years, especially in political circles. It is a charge that is often hurled by politicians at their opponents to discredit their policies. But this term could be fittingly used to describe the findings of many evangelical writers when assessing the beliefs of the early Church fathers. The sad fact is, there is more objectivity and truth among the secular scholars and Roman Catholic theologians in regard to the history of the early church fathers than there is in the writings of most professing believers. That is so wrong! After all, born-again Christians are the ones that have the Spirit of truth within them. They should not therefore be happy with anything other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Many evangelical writers seem incapable of performing an objective study and releasing accurate conclusions. For some, this could be because they are ignorance of what they are saying because they have failed (or refused) to do the deep hard work of research, so needed on this subject to establish ancient facts. For others, they may realize the historic facts, but choose to misrepresent them in order to justify their own partial position.

 

[rwb]

I don't blame you for not taking my word on all of that. But it wouldn't be very hard for you to verify if you want. All of it's well accepted among church history scholars. It's pretty much all over the internet. But, if you have evidence that any of it is wrong, I'd be glad to look it over. I'm always open like that.

To avoid misunderstanding, I'd like to clarify what I meant by the problem supposedly being solved by Augustine. The problem was that the allegorical method had no standards. By using allegory anybody could make the scriptures say whatever they thought they should say. Each individual became their own standard instead of the plain sense of the scriptures. So who was to be the final authority on what was the correct allegory? It really was a problem. Well, Augustine solved the problem by saying the Roman church was the final authority. I suppose that's changed by now, but I'm not sure who the final arbitrator is as to which allegory is the right one.

Sorry Rich, but I see this as a cop-out! WPM has quoted verbatim extensively from the ECF many times in the forums, citing references from which to prove. You should also be able to cite your sources so all reading might have something besides 'thus sayeth Rich."

 

[Rich R]

But this is the whole basis of your argument and of this thread. This thread is absolutely moot until you support your claims with hard historic evidence. This was one of the overriding reasons I took it upon myself about 12 years ago to research the ECFs in depth - Christians quoting erroneous opinions that they never researched and never verified.This is exactly what the same people do with their theology - they just swallow what they are taught without verification. They are gullible. They cannot think for themselves. What they believe is man's teaching, not biblical truth.

Truth should matter to Christians because they possess the Spirit of truth. Regardless if history cuts across our own understanding, or what we have been taught, we should still have an inner desire to know what is right, and to establish the facts. But some of the most blinkered and deceived people who quote history, are actually Bible-believing Christians. Even when you show them the facts, they still want to hold on to their deception.

Many historical accounts are biased, ill-researched and devoid of hard detailed evidence. They are lazy investigation. A sweeping opinion or the quoting of the opinion of another lazy “expert” seems to be the norm.

We hear the term “fake news” used a lot over recent years, especially in political circles. It is a charge that is often hurled by politicians at their opponents to discredit their policies. But this term could be fittingly used to describe the findings of many evangelical writers when assessing the beliefs of the early Church fathers. The sad fact is, there is more objectivity and truth among the secular scholars and Roman Catholic theologians in regard to the history of the early church fathers than there is in the writings of most professing believers. That is so wrong! After all, born-again Christians are the ones that have the Spirit of truth within them. They should not therefore be happy with anything other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Many evangelical writers seem incapable of performing an objective study and releasing accurate conclusions. For some, this could be because they are ignorance of what they are saying because they have failed (or refused) to do the deep hard work of research, so needed on this subject to establish ancient facts. For others, they may realize the historic facts, but choose to misrepresent them in order to justify their own partial position.

Did you notice that after very recently apologizing to me for personal attacks, your are now accusing me of being gullible, deceived, blinkered (whatever that is), and unable to think for myself? It doesn't bother me, but it does tend to make me give less credence to your posts. But it's not only me you accuse of those things; you are also accusing the vast majority of church as well as secular historians. I doubt if they would care any more than I, but I would guess they'd also tend to dismiss your arguments.

So, having said that, what are the ECFs? I tried to Google it and came up with a blank.

 

[Rich R]

Sorry Rich, but I see this as a cop-out! WPM has quoted verbatim extensively from the ECF many times in the forums, citing references from which to prove. You should also be able to cite your sources so all reading might have something besides 'thus sayeth Rich."

Yeah, you're right. Historians don't know what they are talking about. I should just listen to WPM. I mean, what does Jeremiah or Paul know about God's plan? They're both deceived because they didn't read and believe the ECFs. They're nothing but a couple of cop outs! Seriously?

BTW, this idea of accusing someone of being a cop out is boring. I think it's nothing more than the stock answer when someone has nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Way overused. It means nothing.

 

[WPM]

Did you notice that after very recently apologizing to me for personal attacks, your are now accusing me of being gullible, deceived, blinkered (whatever that is), and unable to think for myself? It doesn't bother me, but it does tend to make me give less credence to your posts. But it's not only me you accuse of those things; you are also accusing the vast majority of church as well as secular historians. I doubt if they would care any more than I, but I would guess they'd also tend to dismiss your arguments.

So, having said that, what are the ECFs? I tried to Google it and came up with a blank.

I was actually making a general observation of my experience at reading Premil historians online when it comes to the ECFs. They all repeat the same uninformed error. I stand by it. It is a fact. It was not personal. Now, will you admit that your whole thesis here is moot?

ECFs is "early Church fathers."

 

[WPM]

Yeah, you're right. Historians don't know what they are talking about. I should just listen to WPM. I mean, what does Jeremiah or Paul know about God's plan? They're both deceived because they didn't read and believe the ECFs. They're nothing but a couple of cop outs! Seriously?

Your whole thesis is based on a misrepresentation of the ECFs. Yet, you refuse to remove the error you are propagating. Do you think: if you state a thing that makes it a fact? Well, that is not the way it works. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must approve."

 

[Rich R]

But this is the whole basis of your argument and of this thread. This thread is absolutely moot until you support your claims with hard historic evidence. This was one of the overriding reasons I took it upon myself about 12 years ago to research the ECFs in depth - Christians quoting erroneous opinions that they never researched and never verified. This is exactly what the same people do with their theology - they just swallow what they are taught without verification. They are gullible. They cannot think for themselves. What they believe is man's teaching, not biblical truth.

I found the ECFs on staycatholic.com. Now I know what you mean.

Everybody that has ever lived has good points and bad points. When someone is writing about someone else they will either emphasize to some degree or another the good points or the bad points. It all depends on the writer's point of view.

So I can easily understand the Catholic church emphasizing the good points while minimizing or eliminating the bad points, hence your positive view of the early church fathers. I can appreciate that. The EFCs all certainly had good points. However they also had some bad points that the Catholic church may tend to disregard. Again, very understandable. Nonetheless, it is poor scholarship and leads to a bigoted conclusion.

However, in order to come to a logical decision on any controversial matter it is incumbent that one listen to both sides of the argument. Historians, Christian and secular alike, tell us things about the ECFs that the Catholics didn't. They don't necessarily go against the Catholic church. They all acknowledge the good points. They just give a more complete picture by including the dirty laundry along with the clean. They have no axe to grind. They look at ancient documents, read them for what they say, and report their findings.

Just because the Catholic church doesn't acknowledge what the vast majority of scholars say, does not make the scholars wrong. Everything I said in the OP is verifiable history, verifiable by source documents from the early centuries AD.

See if you can find any historian, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan (or whateverer) historian, that would say Origin was not one of the first to allagorize scripture. They Catholic church may not say he did, but they won't say he didn't either. They won't bring it up at all.