Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism
Quote:To Chafer DTS: Walvoord is totally different from Camping, who says don't go to church.So, Camping might not be the best representative of Amillenialism.

That debate took place in 1980. That was before Camping went in to his date setting and other errors relating to not go to Church . But at the time of that debate he had with Dr. John Walvoord , Mr Camping did present the standard Amillennial position in it. Other Amillennial scholars were requested to debate Dr. John Walvoord but turned it down. But Dr. John Walvoord in his books did interact with top Amillennial scholars such as Dr. B.B. Warfield [ Warfield's position combines elements of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism ] , Arthur Pink, Albertus Pieters, Dr. Oswald Allis , Dr. Louis Berkhof and many others in his book The  Millennial Kingdom. He dealt with their specific arguments againist the dispensational & premillennial position.

Quote:The term "pet theory" is unscholarly prejorative language.  I have chosen not to turn it back on you.

I used that term because I believe that Amillennialism in it's 3 variations are utterly false based on an honest reading of Scripture. I base this on my own personal study of their writings found in their systematic theology sets and commentaries on Scripture.

Quote:But I will ask you this.  Walvoord reperesenting dispensationalism believes these things, which I don't think are in the Bible.

I believe each and every person can claim the very same thing to one another on various issues. What is your ecclesiological and eschatological view point ? In his debate Dr. Walvoord was dealing with the broad issue of premillennialism and not dispensationalism per se.

Quote:1) The rapture as being something like invasion of the Body snatchers is not in the Bible.  There is no OT precedent for people dissapearing like this.

I believe that you did not describe the belief in a rapture in it's proper perspective at all. The rapture simply teaches that dead Christians in Christ will be resurrected and those who are alive at that time will be changed and translated and meet the Lord in the air and be taken to heaven. We have 2 OT cases of living believers who were taken to heaven. They were Enoch and Elijah the Prophet. Regardless of one's view regarding the time of the rapture can concede those two OT examples.  This does not affect the doctrine of the Millennial Kingdom. Since what you said only deals with the doctrine of the rapture.

Quote:Jesus says the opposite in Mt 24 and Luke 17 when he says it will be like Lot escapeing or NOah.  The word rapture is not in the Bible.

The dispensational positon does not believe that neither Matthew 24-25 or Luke 17 is dealing with the issue of the rapture. The context of those passages deals with Jesus coming back to the earth to reign after the tribulation and to sit on His throne and start His Kingdom on the earth in Israel. Those alive at the time if they are believers will enter it in their bodies and those who are lost who are alive will be cast to eternal damnation. They are thus taken to judgment. Neither Matthew 24-25 or Luke 17 teaches the rapture at all since there is nothing of a physical resurrection nor a change of living saints who are to be translated is no where taught there at all. In simple words, I believe you commited a misinterpretation of Scripture on those passages. The context of those passage are related directly to Israel since Jesus will come back to reign on the throne of David there and start His kingdom on the earth. The word rapture is taken from the Latin translation of the NT. So it is in the Latin translation . In the original NT Greek however the word used is harpazo which means " to snatch or catch away " (  VINE'S COMPLETE EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, pg.92 ) Both rapture in the Latin means the same thing as harpazo . And correctly tranlated in our present day english translations such as KJV, NKJV, NIV and many others. You likewise used a fallacy argument by suggusting that if a word in not in Scripture it means it is false. Would you reject the Trinity, Incarnation and other doctrines where these terms do not appear in Scripture ? Those terms may not be in Scripture but the doctrine itself is found in Scripture. You are basically following Jehovah Wittness type of arguments in your reasoning there with the word rapture.

Quote:2) Your idea about the Jews getting slaughtered before they accept Christ in the end times.  First, what is your Bible verse for this?  I have an explaination for the Zechariah 13 one you might base it on.  The main thrust of Zecharaih 12 or Romans 11 sounds totally the opposite of your Israel covered in blood ideas.

I don't believe that you can get around Zech 13:8 where it states twothirds shall be cut off and die and one third will be refined through it. The context of the passage relate to the future tribulation period. Zech 12 and Romans 11 relates to Israel's national salvation and is in full harmony with what is in Zech 13:8-9. There is nothing opposite about it at all.

Quote:Why does the 1 Thess 4:16 text say aer and not ether?

I am not sure what you are saying there at all.

Quote: 3) Walvoord is totally wrong to wait for Babylon to be rebuilt in IRaq for the end times to happen some time in the distant future.  Babylon there will never be rebuilt, it is cursed.

This is a subject of honest discussion. Dr. John Walvoord holds that in Rev. 18 a political Babylon will exist during the Tribulation. Dr. Walvoord in his commentary on the book of Revelation presents 2 views on who Babylon will be. It will either be Rome or a rebuilding of old Babylon  during that time. Dr. Walvoord does personally hold to a literal rebuilding of Babylon. That is based on his exposition of the passages in question. The issue is settled on exegesis of the various OT passages involved and an one of Rev. 18 as well. This does not deal with the doctrine of the Millennial Kingdom at all. But rather the doctrine relating to the 70th week of Daniel. So it was an irrelevent point of issue you brought up on this subject.

Quote:Tell me if I have misrepresented Walvoords views.  Are you your self Walvoord or just a student?

I did not agree with the manner his views were decribes that's all. Dr. Walvoord passed away around 2002. Since  I own many of his writings I can be considered a student of his in that sense. Smile

Quote:Have you graduated from Seminary?

No. I attended only a Bible Institute  for 2 years and receieved a certificate . I scored high honors in the courses. I own and use many standard Reformed Covenant Theology and Dispensational systematic theology sets such as Dr. Charles Hodge Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology, The Works of Dr. B. B.B. Warfield 10 volumes, Dr. William Shedd Dogmatic Theology and others.

Quote:How much Greek and Hebrew Have you taken?

Since I attended only Bible Institute and not seminary I did not take Greek or Hebrew courses. But I do own NT Greek and OT Hebrew works such as Dr. A.T. Robertsons Word Pictures, New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Vine's Expository and others  which helps me in my own personal study. I use books which would be used in Seminary though I do not attend it.
Quote:TO Chafer DTS: Furthermore, how do you expect to solve hundreds of years old theological problems in five minutes with exegetical hermeutics that has been the same for the at long a time too.

Perhaps what you need is a new paradigm that unlocks the whole thing.

For example, in the Book called Fifth Discipline: Createing a learning organization by Peter Senge, he talks about how we see water going as going into a glass and filling up the glass for example.  But people in China might think of it as air going backwards out of the glass.

Theological issues do not tend to take five minutes at all. The problem lies when Amillennial and Postmillennial theologian face the issue and accept the teaching of Scripture which without question teaches the Premillennial point of view. Usually what happens is they tend to avoid works which refutes their position or answers their objections to the teachings of Premillennialism. A case in point is Amillennial and Postmillennial theologians will ignore such classical Premillennial works such as The Theocratic Kingdom  3 volumes by Rev. George N.H. Peters which was written in 1884. It not only sets forth the teaching of Premillennialism but also answers every objection of it as well. I do not expect to solve the problems. All that I do expect is for a number of Christians and the lost world to reject Premillennialism. All I can do is proclaim what I believe is the teaching of Scripture and let God do the rest.
To Chafer DTS-
Thank you for kindly answering my questions.

Your self study after your 2 year degree is impressive.

It is hard to summarize such complex arguements, but I will say this.  Amillenialists have their points.  FOr example, a program called the white horse in has Amillenialists and they answered my question with a long academic paper!

I my self never did beleive amillenialism, but I was also uncomfortable with the pesimism of your theological side of the tracks.

It looks like I am not doing a very good Job of explaining what I mean.

I have some stories about Armageddon and how I think it will play out on townhallblogs.

As to Aer and ether these are two greek words for air.  What I am thinking meet him in the air could mean is the whole world is lifted into hte air includeing hte animals and continents and stuff in relation to the ocean going down and a  mist cloud forming like was probably before Noah's ark.

Thus, armageddon is the whole word, the mountain of hte flat crowded place is the continents (mountain) riseing up out of the ocean (flat crowded place).

What place is more flat and crowded than the ocean?
To Chafer DTS-
Did I miss your answer to the Israel covered in blood question?

Either you and Walvoord take a left behind series spin on it or you allegorize it.

Isn't it easier to say the ocean goes down and blood mixed with water oozes out of the world's port cities the fingers of blood the size and speed of horses?  

This is not totally allegorizing it but takeing into account you are interpreting what someone saw in a vision.

John sees fingers of blood oozing out, has no idea what it is, so calls it horses?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)