Amillennialism

[Breetai]

Here's an interesting site about a Lutheran woman who has trouble with amillennialism. She's put together quite the study.

If you have the time, read though some of it (or all of it), and give your opinion.

http://www.geocities.com/questioningamillennialism/

[Rechtgläubig]

*

[filosofer]

I have had off-on discussions with her over the past 4-5 years. She studies a lot, but has a mental block on the Lutheran understanding; I'm not sure that her Lutheran pastor(s) [WELS, I think] have been effective in communicating with her. Sadly, she reads, studies, and hangs around dispy messageboards and links, so it's no wonder that is her position.

I was on one board in discussion with her (until 1-2 years ago), and because I was presenting the Biblical case for amillennialism, the Admins began to limit what could be said by me. Of course, then the charge was that I was really a "replacement theologian" - a label flung at those who hold to amillennialism - and that then marked me as a heretic; yep, in those words. I revisited that site this past week and the same kind of accusations of heresy and false doctrine were being slapped on anyone who even hinted at something other than dispy. And then the Admins were moving the discussion to "Apologetics" because it was no longer Christian doctrine. Very healthy Christian discussion. :eek:

In Christ's love,
filo

[Breetai]

I have had off-on discussions with her over the past 4-5 years. She studies a lot, but has a mental block on the Lutheran understanding; I'm not sure that her Lutheran pastor(s) [WELS, I think] have been effective in communicating with her. Sadly, she reads, studies, and hangs around dispy messageboards and links, so it's no wonder that is her position.

I was on one board in discussion with her (until 1-2 years ago), and because I was presenting the Biblical case for amillennialism, the Admins began to limit what could be said by me. Of course, then the charge was that I was really a "replacement theologian" - a label flung at those who hold to amillennialism - and that then marked me as a heretic; yep, in those words. I revisited that site this past week and the same kind of accusations of heresy and false doctrine were being slapped on anyone who even hinted at something other than dispy. And then the Admins were moving the discussion to "Apologetics" because it was no longer Christian doctrine. Very healthy Christian discussion. :eek:

In Christ's love,
filo
That's absolutely terrible!

I'm getting the same thing from some crazy person right now over on the eschatology section. The fact is, that I'm not convinced that amillennialism is for sure right. Neither am I convinced that I'm wrong. I just don't know. The dipsy person there is trying to say that all people that disagree with dispensationalism are not even saved, because they have perverted the Gospel. She is grouping RCCs, EOs, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. into the group of deceived. It's sad.

I disagree on a lot of points with people in other denominations, but not one of those things hinder a person's salvation as long as their faith is in the Risen Christ. Why do some people not realize that?

[RedneckAnglican]

can anyone suggest a good book on this from a Lutheran perspective?...I confess to being a bit uninformed on this subject...perhaps a good website...other than the one listed...

[LutherNut]

I disagree on a lot of points with people in other denominations, but not one of those things hinder a person's salvation as long as their faith is in the Risen Christ. Why do some people not realize that?

The question is, do they have saving faith in Christ to begin with? I would venture to suggest that anyone who purposely goes against the words of Jesus do not necessarily have faith in Him. How can you believe in someone when you don't believe him? Jesus plainly says "Of that hour, no one knows, not the angels nor the Son, but the Father only." When he says "no one knows" He means "no one knows." Period. For someone to come along and think that they know or can ascertain some sort of nonsensical formula from Scripture when the very Word made Flesh in His humanity wasn't privy to that information is just plain faithless.

My faith tells me that Jesus knows more than the dispy's do... and He didn't know.


Jay:)

[AngelusSax]

can anyone suggest a good book on this from a Lutheran perspective?...I confess to being a bit uninformed on this subject...perhaps a good website...other than the one listed...

The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation
by Barbara Rossing.

It's pretty much the traditional Lutheran teaching, pointing out where dispensationalism goes wrong, etc.

[Lutherrunner]

The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation
by Barbara Rossing.

It's pretty much the traditional Lutheran teaching, pointing out where dispensationalism goes wrong, etc.

yup....I just finished that last night!....I got it at Scott's recommendation and really glad I did.....now, if I can just get the girlfriend to read it....:scratch:...:prayer:

[filosofer]

There was a book published in 1977 by CPH, then 2nd edition in 1991 by NPH, now no longer in print) titled Things to Come for Planet Earth (http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/e49437a82c0fc2c4.html) by Aaron Luther Plueger (good Irish name ;) ). he developed for his congregation, then gradually became a book (with diagrams - got to be a winner then!). Excellent resource. I had the privilege of calling him and discussing the book about 15 years ago.

Also, check out the CTCR (LCMS) document on premillennial dispensationalism (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/endtme-4.html).

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

The main categories in end times discussion are:

1. pre-millennialism (Jesus returns secretly for the Church prior to the tribulation/earthly, physical millennium)

2. pre-millennial dispensationalism (extreme form of pre-millennialism, claiming that we are now in the dispensation of the Church/grace, which will give way when Christ comes secretly before the tribulation and next dispensation)

3. post-millennialism (Christians "improve" society so much that Christ comes to lead them phsycially in the millennium)

4. amillennialism (literally "no millennium" but in actuality no acceptance of a physical 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth.)

Pre-millennialism was one of two views (along with amillennialism) that has existed since the second century. Pre-millennial dispensationalism, on the other hand, is the view that developed in the 1800’s and now has caught the Christian community by storm (sorry for the pun). The most important influences have been the Scofield Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible. Both of these are dispensational in outlook.

The view that was popular 100 years ago among the mainline churches was called post-millennialism. This view stated that the Christian influence would gradually become so overwhelming that this would lead into the millennium. Post-millennialism was consistent with the political, spiritual, economic times of 100 years ago - solgans such as: the unshinkable ship, control and eliminate all diseases in our life time, the war to end all wars, etc. BTW, the war to end all wars (WWI) brought reality to post-millennialism - the world will keep getting worse, not better, which is what the New Testament presents.

Contrary to popular discussion, amillennialists do believe in the millennium and the rapture. The questions are: what do they mean? and when do they take place? See my post above for some of this.

Some claim: "They are named 'millennial' in their outlook because they expect a literal fulfillment of the 'Messiah's thousand year reign on earth' as described in Revelation chapter 20." Not quite. What they expect is a “selective, literalistic fulfillment” of the reign. Do amillennialists believe in the millennium in Rev. 20? Yep. The question is what kind of millennial reign is it? 1 Cor. 15:26 helps greatly. It shows that Christ's reign began when He ascended into heaven. Now what about Rev. 20?

So, for the dispensationalists, we have to ask: Is it literally a thousand years? They would answer "yes." What about the chain that holds Satan? Most scholars who hold this position would say, "no," the chain is figurative. Thus, they are selective in their literalism, which can, and does, lead to all kinds of problems.

Some times people claim: "Lutherans tend to 'spiritualize' both the judgements and the promises, saying they are only references to historical happenings..." Lutherans have held to the fulfillment of the Scriptures as Scripture intends. To say that we "spiritualize" is to accept the argument of the dispensationalists in their assessment of the Lutheran position. That is one of the problems that this entire issue faces. Terms that have good, solid, historical foundation have been changed to support a false teaching such as dispensationalism.

Even though I am conservative Lutheran I had developed the curriculum and taught at an independent Charismatic college. The first course the students are exposed to is one called the New Testament Church. It traces the Biblical approach to such issues as kingdom, reign, Israel, Church, God’s purpose, and will. It's amazing what a little solid Biblical teaching will do to point out the errors of dispensationalism. The students have gained a far better appreciation of God, His work, His plans, and the centrality of Christ in all studies. They are even open to Law/Gospel dialog! But we cannot fall into the trap of letting the dispensationalists determine the language and the meaning of terms in these discussions. If we do surrender these terms then we move away from solid Biblical scholarship (I don’t mean intellectualism) that can help us avoid the errors.



In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

Here are a few more thoughts for the study of Revelation. (I apologize ahead of time for the length of this response, but it is a crucial one regarding both interpretation methods and faith. I have posted portions of this on another message board a couple of months ago.)

Lutherans believe and accept the seven year tribulation and the millennium, despite the fact that we are often called "amillennialists" (meaning "no millennium" - "thousand years") The problem is not accepting what the text says, but what the text means, originally for the readers/hearers, and then secondarily to those of us who read/hear it today.

When we interpret a passage of the Bible we take it as literal, unless the context forces us to take it as figurative, and in that case the literal interpretation is the figurative one. Most people get confused by trying to make Revelation say something it does not. Thus, those who most loudly proclaim that they believe in a "literal" millennium, do not believe that the chain that holds Satan is literal - even though it is in the same context. This "hyper-literalism" (but selective literalism) leads to many of the false teachings regarding the end times.

Really the foundation for understanding the framework of the end times comes from the following passages: Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21; Acts 2 (especially v. 17-21); Acts 15:13-21; Romans 9-11; 2 Corinthians 10-12; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 5:1-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10; 2:1-12; 1 Peter 4:7-19; 2 Peter 2-3; and Jude. With that framework then we discover the "color" of the end times in Revelation. Isn't it interesting that when John wrote Revelation he intended it as a book to reveal, encourage, and support Christians as they faced the trials and tribulations of first century faith. And yet so many today want to claim that Revelation meant nothing to the first readers, because it is all yet to come. Even more, as you read the passages above, you notice three themes: suffering, faithfulness, comfort/hope. Yet, the "Left Behind" series provides little of that. I've talked to many people who have read some or all of the books, and their common experience was that it induced fear - and these are Christians!

Thus, Revelation is a message of hope, comfort, encouragement, and worship even in the midst of suffering and despite that suffering and what our physical eyes tell us. As you read through Revelation notice how much of it has been incorporated into the worship life of the church. (Might also fit with Paul and Silas and their reactions to being beaten and imprisoned in Philippi, Acts 16:25 ff.)

Aside from the false teachings about the end times in the "Left Behind" series, the authors also present two other major errors. One is that every child under the age of twelve is "raptured" out in the so-called secret coming of Christ for the Church. Where in the Bible is the age limit placed on either condemnation or salvation? There isn't any passage to support this view. Likewise, where does the New Testament teach two future comings of Jesus? It doesn't. Read through the Gospels - not once is there a reference to two comings. Likewise in the letters. The authors refer to the "appearing" (singular).

Now does that mean Lutherans don't believe in the rapture? Of course not! It is based on Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians 4:13–18. But Biblically the rapture occurs at the end when Christ comes in victory. Note how the author of Hebrews puts this:

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. (Hebrews 9:26-28)

Jesus came once (v. 26) and he appears a second time (v. 28). This Hebrews text is also significant because it mentions no possibility of a "second chance" (v. 27) - i.e., waiting for Christ's secret coming then believing. In actuality, the end time comes for an individual either at the person’s death or at Christ's appearing, neither of which we know or expect. Thus, the encouragement to "prepare, be ready, wait..." in the Gospels as well as the letters.

The second doctrinal problem relates to the re-institution of the sacrifices - that doesn't quite square with what the New Testament tells us about the sufficiency and finality of Christ’s substitutionary death. Read the Hebrews passage again to note that point (v. 27).

In Christ's love,
filo

[Breetai]

Lutherans believe and accept the seven year tribulation and the millennium, despite the fact that we are often called "amillennialists"What? I'm pretty sure that Lutherans reject that. Can you show me a source that says we accept that?

That would also make us pre-millennialist (you actually misdefined the term in your other post). Pre-millennialism is defined as Jesus returning before the millennium.

[LutherNut]

What? I'm pretty sure that Lutherans reject that. Can you show me a source that says we accept that?

That would also make us pre-millennialist (you actually misdefined the term in your other post). Pre-millennialism is defined as Jesus returning before the millennium.


The "millenium" is the present Church era, not a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. Jesus told Pilot that His Kingdom was not of this world. We are currentlu living in the "millenium."

The rapture, as described both in 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24 occur on the Last Day. Those who are "left behind" as described in Matthew 24 are not the unbelievers as the LB people claim. The context of that whole passage also contains Jesus' mentionings of the Flood. In the flood, who was "taken" and who was "left behind"? Noah and his family, who were found to be upright and righteous before God were "left behind". The LB people have it all backward.

As far as the 7 year Tribulation period, I'm not sure how that fits into Lutheran (thus true catholic) theology.

...and "pre-millenial" refers to the current era in whch we live. According to the premillenialists, we are currently in the pre-1000 year reign of Christ era. The "millenium" has not yet been realized, it has not yet come.



Jay:wave:

[filosofer]

What? I'm pretty sure that Lutherans reject that. Can you show me a source that says we accept that?


Well, since it is Biblical, we accept it. The issue is whether we accept it based on how pre-millennialists have defined those two terms, and more importantly, when these occur. The answer is obviously, "No, we do not accept as defined by pre-millennialists; but we do accept the Biblical definition and framework."



That would also make us pre-millennialist (you actually misdefined the term in your other post). Pre-millennialism is defined as Jesus returning before the millennium.


I don't think I misdefined it. Can you point it out where I did? If you look at post #9, you will see that I defined Pre-millennialism as teaching that Jesus comes secretly to take the church (rapture) out of the world prior to Jesus's return, when he then establishes the 1,000 year earhly reign (according to pre-millennialists), prior to his coming again after the tribulation. Ultimately dispensationalism teaches three comings of Jesus. The NT only refers to one "coming again".

No, because we accept the 7 year tribulation and the millennium does not make us pre-millennial. It is a matter of how they are defined, and when they occur.
In Christ's love,
filo

[Breetai]

Filosofer, LutherNut was correct when he was describing what Lutheran doctrine teaches in regards to eschatology.

Lutheran doctrine flat-out rejects a literal 1000-year reigning of Christ on earth. As well, the 7-year tribulation is also a figurative period of time.

What you have done is describe pre-millennialism to a key. You said that Lutherans are pre-millennialist, but that is not so. You definitely have something mixed up.

Pre-millennialism= Christian era (time between the Cross and the tribulation), followed by a period of tribulation (usually a literal 7-years), followed by the second-advent, followed by a 1000-year reign of Christ on earth, followed by the final judgement. The rapture is either located before the 7-years, at the mid-point, or after the 7-years (pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib rapture). Dispensationalism adopts this timeframe.

Amillennialism (used by Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Calvanist, etc.)= the 1000-years is a figurative period of time where Christ rules in the hearts of Christians (the Christian age). During this figurative 1000-years there is an indefinite period of tribulation (growing worse as the end nears), followed by the second advent and final judgement.


The Lutheran view is very different from pre-millennialism.

[RedneckAnglican]

yup....I just finished that last night!....I got it at Scott's recommendation and really glad I did.....now, if I can just get the girlfriend to read it....:scratch:...:prayer:

I just added it to my half.com wish list...I'll have the money to get it in a couple of weeks...then I'm going to try to get my wife to read it (the wife that has EVERY book in the "Left Behind" series...woe is me)...

you got this book at Scotty's recommendation...

Angelus recommended it to me...

should we all be worried about the world coming to an end if those two agree on something?...

[filosofer]

Filosofer, LutherNut was correct when he was describing what Lutheran doctrine teaches in regards to eschatology.

Lutheran doctrine flat-out rejects a literal 1000-year reigning of Christ on earth. As well, the 7-year tribulation is also a figurative period of time.

And where have I disagreed with this?

What you have done is describe pre-millennialism to a key. You said that Lutherans are pre-millennialist, but that is not so. You definitely have something mixed up.

Nowhere have I said that Lutherans teach pre-millennialism. Can you provide a quote where I do????? Do you know what it means when I subscribe as a pastor to the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions? Have I written anything, anything that disagrees with that?



Pre-millennialism= Christian era (time between the Cross and the tribulation), followed by a period of tribulation (usually a literal 7-years), followed by the second-advent, followed by a 1000-year reign of Christ on earth, followed by the final judgement. The rapture is either located before the 7-years, at the mid-point, or after the 7-years (pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib rapture). Dispensationalism adopts this timeframe.

Amillennialism (used by Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Calvanist, etc.)= the 1000-years is a figurative period of time where Christ rules in the hearts of Christians (the Christian age). During this figurative 1000-years there is an indefinite period of tribulation (growing worse as the end nears), followed by the second advent and final judgement.

The Lutheran view is very different from pre-millennialism.

Again, I have NEVER taught or written that Lutheranism teaches or holds to premillennialism!!!!

Unless you can provide quotes where I teach, support, or even suggest that Lutherans teach premillennialism, this is getting tiresome. Have you read what I have written?


In Christ's love,
filo

[AngelusSax]

ou got this book at Scotty's recommendation...

Angelus recommended it to me...

should we all be worried about the world coming to an end if those two agree on something?...

In related news, I saw a pig flying today, and some people currently residing in hell shivered with the cold this morning... :)

[Breetai]

And where have I disagreed with this?



Nowhere have I said that Lutherans teach pre-millennialism. Can you provide a quote where I do????? Do you know what it means when I subscribe as a pastor to the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions? Have I written anything, anything that disagrees with that?


Please accept my apologies, Filosofer. After re-reading your posts a couple of times, I realized that I've misread what you'd written. When you wrote,


Lutherans believe and accept the seven year tribulation and the millennium, despite the fact that we are often called "amillennialists" (meaning "no millennium" - "thousand years"),

in post #11; lines 4-5, I was thrown off. I broke my ankle on New Years Eve, so I'm using that as an excuse for my inability to comprehend what you'd written. :sorry:

One thing that I do disagree with though, is when you said that premillennialists teach that Jesus comes in a secret rapture before His second advent (Post #14; lines 5-6). I believe that those who teach a post-tribulational rapture would disagree with this secret rapture, as they teach that it is concurrent with the parousia.

[SPALATIN]

Please accept my apologies, Filosofer. After re-reading your posts a couple of times, I realized that I've misread what you'd written. When you wrote,


Lutherans believe and accept the seven year tribulation and the millennium, despite the fact that we are often called "amillennialists" (meaning "no millennium" - "thousand years"),

in post #11; lines 4-5, I was thrown off. I broke my ankle on New Years Eve, so I'm using that as an excuse for my inability to comprehend what you'd written. :sorry:

One thing that I do disagree with though, is when you said that premillennialists teach that Jesus comes in a secret rapture before His second advent (Post #14; lines 5-6). I believe that those who teach a post-tribulational rapture would disagree with this secret rapture, as they teach that it is concurrent with the parousia.

Wow Bree your twisted ankle has you writing in circles.

You say that you disagree with filosofer, but essentially you failed to differentiate between Pre and Post tribulational groups. Just because Pre-trib people would believe in a "secret" rapture doesn't mean that Post-tribbers would agree with Pre-tribbers. you almost lump them together when really they are quite far apart.

[SPALATIN]

In related news, I saw a pig flying today, and some people currently residing in hell shivered with the cold this morning... :)

Hey Angelus,

Did those in hell know that that anyone else was there or was freezing? I am pretty sure that they were alone in their frigidaire.;)

[LutherNut]

One thing that I do disagree with though, is when you said that premillennialists teach that Jesus comes in a secret rapture before His second advent (Post #14; lines 5-6). I believe that those who teach a post-tribulational rapture would disagree with this secret rapture, as they teach that it is concurrent with the parousia.

Premillenialist timeline:

Jesus is born of a virgin in Bethlehem. (That we all agree)

Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, rose on the third day and ascended 40 days later (on this we also agree)

At some future date Jesus returns secretly, known only to the faithful who are removed from the earth - the Rapture of the Church (Jesus' second coming)

After 7 years of tribulation on the earth Jesus returns again, this time publically, to rid evil from the earth and establish His millenial kingdom to reign 1000 years (His third coming)

After the 1000 years reign Jesus again ascends into heaven and Satan is released "for a little while" known as the "little season."

After this little season, Jesus comes back yet again to defeat Satan and usher in the coming of the new heavens and the new earth for all eternity (His fourth coming)

[Breetai]

Wow Bree your twisted ankle has you writing in circles.

You say that you disagree with filosofer, but essentially you failed to differentiate between Pre and Post tribulational groups. Just because Pre-trib people would believe in a "secret" rapture doesn't mean that Post-tribbers would agree with Pre-tribbers. you almost lump them together when really they are quite far apart.I wish it was twisted...

I don't think I nearly lumped them together. Did it sound like I did? I thought it was Filosofer that lumped them together, as did LutherNut in the next post.

Premillenialist timeline:You described a pretribulationalist-premillennialist timeline here.

The posttribulationalist-premillennialist timeline has the rapture at the same time as the parousia, so there is still only one second-coming.

After the 1000 years reign Jesus again ascends into heaven and Satan is released "for a little while" known as the "little season."I've never heard of this being taught. Could you give me a source for this please?

[filosofer]

Please accept my apologies, Filosofer. After re-reading your posts a couple of times, I realized that I've misread what you'd written. When you wrote,


Lutherans believe and accept the seven year tribulation and the millennium, despite the fact that we are often called "amillennialists" (meaning "no millennium" - "thousand years"),

in post #11; lines 4-5, I was thrown off. I broke my ankle on New Years Eve, so I'm using that as an excuse for my inability to comprehend what you'd written. :sorry:

One thing that I do disagree with though, is when you said that premillennialists teach that Jesus comes in a secret rapture before His second advent (Post #14; lines 5-6). I believe that those who teach a post-tribulational rapture would disagree with this secret rapture, as they teach that it is concurrent with the parousia.


Wow! I hope your pain will not be too much. Breaking an ankle is tough - sorry to hear about that. My God grant you speedy healing.

You know, for a minute there your continued questioning caused me to question what I really did write. But I have been over the territory for 25+ years, and was certain that I had understood and accept the Lutheran position. :)

For clarity, I should have put "secret" in parentheses, so that it could or could not be associated with the position.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Breetai]

Wow! I hope your pain will not be too much. Breaking an ankle is tough - sorry to hear about that. My God grant you speedy healing.

You know, for a minute there your continued questioning caused me to question what I really did write. But I have been over the territory for 25+ years, and was certain that I had understood and accept the Lutheran position. :)

For clarity, I should have put "secret" in parentheses, so that it could or could not be associated with the position.

In Christ's love,
filo
That may have helped. What you wrote, as I read it, really blended pre- and post-tribulationalism together. As well, and I've noticed this with a lot of Lutheran writers (this is very apparent with The Lutheran Witness that the LCMS puts out), is that many of the theological explainations that are given really aren't that clear. They're often very general and don't seem to get to the meat of an issue. I rarely see counter-arguments addressed in these things. I feel like I'm reading a Sunday School paper when I'm reading the average Lutheran publications (obviously that isn't the case with many journal articles, thesis', books, volumes (ie. Pieper), etc.). I'm not really sure how to explain it. I guess I just don't like the "Lutheran style" of writing; whatever that is... :scratch: It might just be me as well, rambling on.

[KEPLER]

Premillenialist timeline:

Jesus is born of a virgin in Bethlehem. (That we all agree)

Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, rose on the third day and ascended 40 days later (on this we also agree)

At some future date Jesus returns secretly, known only to the faithful who are removed from the earth - the Rapture of the Church (Jesus' second coming)

After 7 years of tribulation on the earth Jesus returns again, this time publically, to rid evil from the earth and establish His millenial kingdom to reign 1000 years (His third coming)

After the 1000 years reign Jesus again ascends into heaven and Satan is released "for a little while" known as the "little season."

After this little season, Jesus comes back yet again to defeat Satan and usher in the coming of the new heavens and the new earth for all eternity (His fourth coming)
Jay,

As Breetai pointed out, you should qualify this as the "dispensational" pre-mill (DP) timeline. The "historical" pre-mill (HP) timeline is somewhat different:

Christ's second coming is after the tribulation, and He doesn't mysteriously "disappear" during the millenium to come yet again.

Although it's not common, there are a few Lutherans who are historical pre-millenial (John Warwick Montgomery, for one!).

A person can be historical pre-mill and still be (mostly) orthodox, because their position does not change the nature of Christ's sacrifice, or hold out for a future revival of the OT sacriicial system. It is not possible (Breetai!) to be Lutheran and be dispensational.

Kepler

[KEPLER]

That may have helped. What you wrote, as I read it, really blended pre- and post-tribulationalism together. As well, and I've noticed this with a lot of Lutheran writers (this is very apparent with The Lutheran Witness that the LCMS puts out), is that many of the theological explainations that are given really aren't that clear. They're often very general and don't seem to get to the meat of an issue. I rarely see counter-arguments addressed in these things. I feel like I'm reading a Sunday School paper when I'm reading the average Lutheran publications (obviously that isn't the case with many journal articles, thesis', books, volumes (ie. Pieper), etc.). I'm not really sure how to explain it. I guess I just don't like the "Lutheran style" of writing; whatever that is... :scratch: It might just be me as well, rambling on.

Breetai,

In some ways I agree with you here: it seems really underwhelming when the dispies put so much time, energy and (dare I say!) creativity into an elaborate eschatalogical system, and all the Lutherans can come up with is a statement not much longer than what the creed says: "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead."

But (sadly!) I think you and I both are victims of what amounts to nothing more than eisegetical legerdemain. The Lutheran response SEEMS wimpy because the dispy assault SEEMS so substantial. The problem is that the Dispy assault is not substantial: it's a house of cards.

Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone destroys dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is Pelagian at its very core. Man's innate ability to choose God over Satan is critical to the way dispensationalism operates: remember, after all, that in DP, the New Teastament church only exists because the Jews rejected Jesus: the church is God's "Plan B" while He waits around in heaven for the Jews to figure it out. If the Jews had not rejected Christ, we would all have been toast! God himself (in dispensationalism) becomes some helpless half-wit waiting around for one group of people to do what He really, really, really wants them to do.

That being said, there is still a part of me that wants to see a group of Lutheran pastors and theologians come up with one thorough debunking of dispensationalism (in book form!) and be done with it.

The Plueger book filo mentioned is good, but it's not enough. One other book I can recommend (by a Reformed* pastor) is called A Case for Amillenialism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080106435X/103-0441996-5303860?v=glance&n=283155) (link to Amazon). He covers a lot of the key passages that need treatment (Daniel 9, the Olivet Discourse, etc). He depends a lot on the Meredith Kline article I emailed you.

Cheers,

Kepler

*I use "Reformed" in it's proper sense, which is to say: a synonym for "Calvinist"; I do not use it in the typical Lutheran way, which is to uncritically and erroneously call anything that's not RC, EO, or Lutheran as "Reformed".

[Breetai]

It is not possible (Breetai!) to be Lutheran and be dispensational.

KeplerI'm aware of that. I'm not a dispensationalist. :)

I do love reading about it though (and all of eschatology). It's interesting.

[RedneckAnglican]

I sent this question in to ELCA.org...

What is the ELCA stance on amillenialism and the second-coming of
CHRIST?...


this was the massively unsatisfying answer I got...

We look forward to the second coming of Christ. We do not pretend to
know how it will happen, or over a period of how long.


I REALLY need to get that Rossing book...

[Breetai]

I sent this question in to ELCA.org...



this was the massively unsatisfying answer I got...



I REALLY need to get that Rossing book...See? That's exactly what I'm talking about! I get much the same answer from the LCMS.

On the other hand (why do I always think of ...men ...de when I say that? ;) ), at least they're being honest.


I'm "officially" adopting, "We look forward to the second coming of Christ. We do not pretend to know how it will happen, or over a period of how long", as the "official" Lutheran position on the subject.