Reference for the Rapture? [Archive]

Luther073082

6th August 2007, 12:33 AM

DaSeminarian

6th August 2007, 07:24 AM

Ok well thats a decent reference but to play devils advocate (its really something I like to do) I would also mention that it does not actually mention the timing of such things. . . So is there evidence that God will "rapture us up" before all the "bad stuff" happens to protect us from experiencing it? Or is this perhaps wishful thinking?

I guess I just find it weird given how much we are told to suffer on account of Christ that we would get to avoid all the final tribulations.

And personally I just don't get how that wouldn't lead to universal salvation? I mean think about this for a moment. Your an atheist, Jew, muslim, hindu, whatever and you know that Christian's belive that they and only they are going to escape the world prior to a bunch of bad stuff happening. I mean I think most people know that basic amount.

Then all of a sudden all the world's christian's disappear and bad stuff starts to happen. Maybe its just me but wouldn't you then need to be a MORON not to decide "Oh maybe this Christian stuff has some truth to it. . . LIKE EVERYTHING" and become a Christian?

I guess its that part that always bugged me. If a bunch of Christians all disapper at once wouldn't that make every non-christian with a brain a christian immediatly?

Interestingly enough I was listening to a Catholic Radio Station in Fort Wayne recently and heard them dispel the "Left Behind" theology by showing that everytime God took people from the earth and left a remnant (i.e. Noah and the Ark) the people he took were not the good but the evil. The righteous were left to enjoy the earth. Tim LaHaye can stick that in his pipe and smoke it.:P

filosofer

6th August 2007, 07:31 AM

Luther073082

6th August 2007, 10:12 AM

The problem with the "rapture of the church before the end" is that it assumes two more comings of Jesus, whereas the NT only refers to one coming. See Hebrews 9:28.

And another problem is that it assumes that the temple sacrifices will be restarted after the church is supposedly raptured. So, was Jesus' sacrifice complete, and final? 1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 10, etc. indicate that his sacrifice is. A re-institution of the sacrifices would deny what Christ has done.

In Christ's love,
filo

So not teaching the rapture is not heresy within the Lutheran church?

Thank God because as a Sunday school teacher I was worried I might have to teach about that and while on one hand I really don't belive that our souls will suddenly be raptured up to heaven so we can avoid the bad things but I also belive my job and responsibility is to teach that which the church teaches.

Jim47

6th August 2007, 11:42 AM

So not teaching the rapture is not heresy within the Lutheran church?

Thank God because as a Sunday school teacher I was worried I might have to teach about that and while on one hand I really don't belive that our souls will suddenly be raptured up to heaven so we can avoid the bad things but I also belive my job and responsibility is to teach that which the church teaches.

There is indeed a rapture, but it will come at the end when Jesus returns, not a 1000 years before as many believe.

The rapture as most people believe is a heressy and it completely undermines Jesus sacrifice in that those people who believe it think they will have this 1000 year period to make themselves right with God. Just more decision theology :sick: and man wanting to take credit for his own salvation.

Luther073082

6th August 2007, 11:51 AM

There is indeed a rapture, but it will come at the end when Jesus returns, not a 1000 years before as many believe.

The rapture as most people believe is a heressy and it completely undermines Jesus sacrifice in that those people who believe it think they will have this 1000 year period to make themselves right with God. Just more decision theology :sick: and man wanting to take credit for his own salvation.

oh ok wait a second . . . I thought the ordinary belief was.

1. Antichrist comes to power
2. All Christians go to heaven
3. 7 years of scary stuff
4. Jesus comes again and judges the world. . .

but I really think

1. Antichrist comes to power
2. 7 years of scary stuff.
3. Jesus comes again and judges the world INCLUDING Christians

Is this correct?

DaSeminarian

6th August 2007, 12:00 PM

DaRev

6th August 2007, 09:44 PM

To clarify...

In Matthew 24 and 25 Jesus speaks of the end and His return. There was a feeling during the 1st century that Christ's return was iminent. The Chirstians at Thessalonica were concerned that their loved ones who had died would miss the return of Christ. St. Paul in his letter to them simply connects to Jesus' teaching in Matthew and assures the Thessalonicans that not only will there deceased loved ones not miss Jesus' return, but that they in reality will be the first to be "raptured" or raised to meet the Lord.

The events of Matthew 24 & 25 and 1 Thessalonians 4 are one and the same, and occur on the Last Day. There is no 7 years of Tribulation. The tribulation is ongoing. There is no literal "millenial reign of Christ" on earth. (Jesus said to Pilate at His trial "My Kingdom is not of this world.") The "millenial reign" is current. We are now in that period of time.

BTW, the term "amillenial" does not fit Lutheran theology. We prefer to call it "realized millenialism" because the "millenium" is happening right now. It is currently being realized.

GratiaCorpusChristi

6th August 2007, 09:55 PM

Four really, really great books to read on this:

The Rapture Trap, by Barbara Rossing
The Last Days According to Jesus, by R.C. Sproul
A Case for Amillenialism, by Kim Riddlebarger
The Lamb's Supper, by Scott Hahn

Each is pretty easy to real. I've read all four, and absolutely love them. You can probably find them pretty cheep on amazon, too.

Edial

6th August 2007, 11:04 PM

The best books that I have on the topics ...

"The Rapture" Pre-, Mid-, or Post Tribulational?
1 book by 4 authors.
They have a Point-Counterpoint discussions.
Excellent.
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. - Paul D. Feinberg - Douglas J. Moo - Richard R. Reiter.

"Three Views on the Millenium and Beyond" Premillenianist, Postmillenianism, Amillenianism.
Darrell L. Bock.

These two books cover all the verses and arguments that each camp has to offer.

Thanks,
Ed

Jim47

6th August 2007, 11:05 PM

oh ok wait a second . . . I thought the ordinary belief was.

1. Antichrist comes to power
2. All Christians go to heaven
3. 7 years of scary stuff
4. Jesus comes again and judges the world. . .

but I really think

1. Antichrist comes to power
2. 7 years of scary stuff.
3. Jesus comes again and judges the world INCLUDING Christians

Is this correct?

No, not correct at all. We are in the tribulation right now. Jesus will come as a thief in the night. He will call us to him and we will be taken to heaven with Him, He will catch all the un godly and they will stand in the judgement only to be condemned and sent to the hot place. Heaven and earth will be destroyed in a flash, and God will create a new heaven and earth, and we will live with him forever.

To get a real simple clear picture of this get the People's Bible series book on Revelation. It will make it crystal clear for you. The only mystery in all this is when will Jesus return. No one but The Father knows. :holy:

DaRev

6th August 2007, 11:08 PM

Dr. Brighton's commentary of Revelation (http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=80145&part%5Fno=156031&find%5Fcategory=80145&find%5Fdescription=Concordia+Commentary&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=)is excellent.

Luther073082

7th August 2007, 12:23 AM

DaRev

7th August 2007, 12:28 AM

Thanks that helps make a lot more sense of the whole question.

So basically the tribulations are from Christ's death and ressurection until Christ's eventual return. And the rapture speaks of a time when all Christian souls will be raptured to heaven while Satan, his deamonic forces, and the souls of the damned are thrown into the lake of fire?

The "tribulation" is the ways of the world that we have to endure while we are here. The "rapture" is that "catching up" of the faithful to accompany the Lord to the judgement where the righteous receive their inheritance of the Kingdom of God and the wicked are thrown into "the lake of fire." The Kingdom will be established upon the new heavens and new earth.

Zecryphon

7th August 2007, 03:02 AM

Ok well thats a decent reference but to play devils advocate (its really something I like to do) I would also mention that it does not actually mention the timing of such things. . . So is there evidence that God will "rapture us up" before all the "bad stuff" happens to protect us from experiencing it? Or is this perhaps wishful thinking?

I guess I just find it weird given how much we are told to suffer on account of Christ that we would get to avoid all the final tribulations.

And personally I just don't get how that wouldn't lead to universal salvation? I mean think about this for a moment. Your an atheist, Jew, muslim, hindu, whatever and you know that Christian's belive that they and only they are going to escape the world prior to a bunch of bad stuff happening. I mean I think most people know that basic amount.

Then all of a sudden all the world's christian's disappear and bad stuff starts to happen. Maybe its just me but wouldn't you then need to be a MORON not to decide "Oh maybe this Christian stuff has some truth to it. . . LIKE EVERYTHING" and become a Christian?

I guess its that part that always bugged me. If a bunch of Christians all disapper at once wouldn't that make every non-christian with a brain a christian immediatly?
I don't believe a rapture would automatically convert the world to Christainity. The world, will do what it always does, favor intellect and their own understanding over revealed truth. The scientists will be enacted to try and find a scientific explanation for what has happened. The world will actually rejoice I believe, that the "pesky, hellfire and brimstone" Christians are gone and they can now live as they like without being judged. A rapture will further harden the hearts of many, but I believe some will come to faith because of it, but I don't think it will be a world-wide mass-conversion.

Zecryphon

7th August 2007, 03:04 AM

Interestingly enough I was listening to a Catholic Radio Station in Fort Wayne recently and heard them dispel the "Left Behind" theology by showing that everytime God took people from the earth and left a remnant (i.e. Noah and the Ark) the people he took were not the good but the evil. The righteous were left to enjoy the earth. Tim LaHaye can stick that in his pipe and smoke it.:P
I think what Tim LaHaye has in his pipe right now is doing enough damage. LOL The most recent book, Kingdom Come, is most disturbing. And to think, there was a time when I couldn't wait for the next LB book to come out. LOL

Luther073082

7th August 2007, 08:28 AM

I don't believe a rapture would automatically convert the world to Christainity. The world, will do what it always does, favor intellect and their own understanding over revealed truth. The scientists will be enacted to try and find a scientific explanation for what has happened. The world will actually rejoice I believe, that the "pesky, hellfire and brimstone" Christians are gone and they can now live as they like without being judged. A rapture will further harden the hearts of many, but I believe some will come to faith because of it, but I don't think it will be a world-wide mass-conversion.

Well I think it would if it was "pre-tribulation" or whatever the term. However what we are taught is that we are living in the tribulations and Christ could return at any time.

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 09:03 AM

oh ok wait a second . . . I thought the ordinary belief was.

Scenario A:
1. Antichrist comes to power
2. All Christians go to heaven
3. 7 years of scary stuff
4. Jesus comes again and judges the world. . .

but I really think

Scenario B:
1. Antichrist comes to power
2. 7 years of scary stuff.
3. Jesus comes again and judges the world INCLUDING Christians

Is this correct?

Luther073082,

A little bit of technical info. Most of us will refer to the events labeled as "Scenario A" you have described above either by its colloquial name "Left Behind Theology" or by its technical name, which is "dispensationalism," or (to be more technical) "dispensational premillenialism."(DP for short). It is "pre"millenial, because Christ returns before the so-called millenium, the 1000 years mentioned at the end of Revelation. This position is novel in that (as filo said before), Jesus returns not once, but twice. Once before the "tribulation" (this return is where the believers are "raptured" away before the 7 years of scary stuff) and then again before the final judgment.

It is an aberrant, heterodox view of the end times. It did not even exist until a manic-depressive Scottish girl had some "visions" which she was allowed to share with her church. A man named John Nelson Darby got wind of her visions, and systematized them and began preaching this new system. It was further systematized and popularized in the USA via the Scofield Study Bible.

Scenario B, on the other hand, is called "historical premillenialism" (HP for short). It bears this name, because this is the kind of premillenialism that we see in some of the early church. HP does not see Christ returning until after the tribulation, but nevertheless before the millenium. There are a few Lutherans who hold this belief, most notably John Warwick Montgomery.

The biggest difference between the two, however, is not immediately apparent. What really divides the two systems is that HP sees a fundamental continuity between God's people in the OT and God's people in the NT. In other words, you, I, Abraham and Moses are belong to the same {set} of people: those who belong to God.

Dispensationalism teaches a fundamental break between God's people in the OT ("Israel") and God's people in the NT ("the Church"). THIS IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF DISPENSATIONLAISM. All of its other errors flow out of this one.

The most fundamental hermeneutical mistake they make is to interpret the NT in light of the OT, rather than the other way around. (I have heard it said many, many times in DP circles that "Daniel is the key to understanding Revelation." This is 100% backwards. We interpret the OT in light of the revelation in Jesus Christ, which is what Jesus taught on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24).

In DP, the purpose of the tribulation is for the Jews ("Israel") to get one last chance with God before Jesus really comes back. What you have to understand is that in dispensationalism, the crucifixion of Christ was an accident. (EVERY DP theologian will deny this, but it is an impossible conclusion to avoid). IF the Jews had accepted Jesus as Messiah, His earthly Kingdom would have been established in Israel right then and there. No crucifixion.

Do you see the problem there?

The DP theologians refer to the "Church" as a parenthesis in God's ultimate plan. The Church is an "oops," a Plan B just in case the Jews rejected their Messiah.

This is getting longer than I intended...let me hurry up & finish...

Lutherans do not believe in a single antichrist who will rise up at the end of the ages to try to lead the world astray. This belief arises from a faulty reading of Daniel 9. John clearly states that there will be many antichrists, not just one.

We see the "millenium" and the "great tribulation" as happening concurrently, and happening right now.

Dr. Brighton's commentary of Revelation (http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=80145&part%5Fno=156031&find%5Fcategory=80145&find%5Fdescription=Concordia+Commentary&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=)is excellent.
Unfortunately, DaRev, it's not just about Revelation. The dispies gather Scripture from all over the Bible, OT & NT, and create what amounts to an overwhelming whirlwind of evidence to try to support their view.

I think many of them are perfectly well aware that the entire system is a house of cards, and that if one piece falls, the whole things crumbles, which is why, when a critic brings up a point about x, they will quickly bring in Scripture pertaining to a, b, c, d, e, f, etc.... It's definitely a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" scenario.

The thing that plays heaviest into it are OT prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel. Their first piece of evidence (and to the uninitiated, it's a doozie!) is the...erm...restoration of Israel in 1948. "Doncha see?! That proves we're right!!"

In order to understand and combat it properly, we need not only a good commentary on Revelation, but also on Daniel, Ezekiel, Zehcariah, & Jeremiah. (You should read how DPs get around Hebrews 8, which truly is the Nuclear Bomb which destroys their system. You've never seen such eisegetical gymnastics!!)

Waaaaaaaay too long, sorry.

Kepler

Luther073082

7th August 2007, 09:14 AM

Uh oh, get out your Bibles, and the Book of Concord, I smell a theological battle!!!

I'm going to watch from the sidelines though, I don't know enough about Revelations and End of Times theology.

Zecryphon

7th August 2007, 09:29 AM

Uh oh, get out your Bibles, and the Book of Concord, I smell a theological battle!!!

I'm going to watch from the sidelines though, I don't know enough about Revelations and End of Times theology.
I think one thing that makes end times theology so confusing is that the events spoken about in it, have not come to pass yet. This is different than other areas of theology, like Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection, because those things have happened and we can see clearly from the scriptures, what happened and draw conclusions based upon what we've read. That isn't entirely true here.

Luther073082

7th August 2007, 09:39 AM

I think one thing that makes end times theology so confusing is that the events spoken about in it, have not come to pass yet. This is different than other areas of theology, like Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection, because those things have happened and we can see clearly from the scriptures, what happened and draw conclusions based upon what we've read. That isn't entirely true here.

That is very true, I mean look at the bible. . . How long did it take the diciples to understand what Jesus was talking about half the time.

They didn't really *get* it until it had already come to pass. Its difficult for us to understand sometimes why they couldn't figure it all out but when we place ourselves in their shoes, we really don't get it either.

bennyk

7th August 2007, 10:05 AM

1 Thessalonians 4:17...

17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 5:9...

9For God hath not appointed us to wrath

I'm not saying I do or do not believe in the rapture before the tribulation, but 1 Thessalonians 5:9 kind of implies that it may be before the tribulation.

I think we can all agree that there is a good chance there will be some sort of rapture (just the timing of it is the question here). So maybe the not appointed us to wrath bit indicates that it would be before the tribulation.

Who knows, I could be completely wrong.

Thanks and God bless,
--Ben

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 10:11 AM

Uh oh, get out your Bibles, and the Book of Concord, I smell a theological battle!!!.

Amongst whom?

Luther073082

7th August 2007, 10:18 AM

Amongst whom?

Sounded like you and Rev might get into it there. . . I thought you where disagreeing with his book. . .

That normally is the start of a theology battle.

filosofer

7th August 2007, 10:35 AM

No, they do not disagree on the book by Brighton. Kepler's point is that the base of the argument is greater than the Apocalypse (Revelation).

A good way to look at the end times theology (eschatology) is in two parts:

Skeleton (Framework):

Many OT prophecies, Matt 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21, 1 Thes. 4:13-18, 2 Thes. 1-2, Hebrews 3-4, 9-10, 1 Peter 4, 2 Peter 2-3, and Jude (others but at least a starting point)

Skin (Fleshed out):

Revelation

Note: if you get this order wrong, by putting Revelation as the framework, then everything else is out of kilter. That is when you see all kinds of eisegesis (reading into the text) by the DP.

In Christ's love,
filo

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 10:56 AM

Sounded like you and Rev might get into it there. . . I thought you where disagreeing with his book. . .

That normally is the start of a theology battle.

Yeah, what filo said. I didn't disagree with DaRev at all (in fact, I added the title he recommended to my wish-list!) :thumbsup:

DaRev

7th August 2007, 11:51 AM

I don't believe a rapture would automatically convert the world to Christainity. The world, will do what it always does, favor intellect and their own understanding over revealed truth. The scientists will be enacted to try and find a scientific explanation for what has happened. The world will actually rejoice I believe, that the "pesky, hellfire and brimstone" Christians are gone and they can now live as they like without being judged. A rapture will further harden the hearts of many, but I believe some will come to faith because of it, but I don't think it will be a world-wide mass-conversion.

The "rapture" occurs on the Last Day. There are no "mass conversions", no scientists digging for evidence, no non-Christians dancing and rejoicing. When the "rapture" occurs, Christ sits on the judgement seat and the righteous inherit the Kingdom and the wicked are eternally condemned. There is no time for mass conversions or scientific study or anything else. When Christ returns, wherever we are in our faith walk, that's where we remain. There are no second chances.

DaRev

7th August 2007, 11:54 AM

Zecryphon

7th August 2007, 12:34 PM

The "rapture" occurs on the Last Day. There are no "mass conversions", no scientists digging for evidence, no non-Christians dancing and rejoicing. When the "rapture" occurs, Christ sits on the judgement seat and the righteous inherit the Kingdom and the wicked are eternally condemned. There is no time for mass conversions or scientific study or anything else. When Christ returns, wherever we are in our faith walk, that's where we remain. There are no second chances.
"The "rapture" occurs on the Last Day. There are no "mass conversions", no scientists digging for evidence, no non-Christians dancing and rejoicing."

My post was in resonse to his proposed scenario of a mass-conversion after the rapture. The things I mentioned are possible under that scenario and do not reflect what I actually believe.

"When the "rapture" occurs, Christ sits on the judgement seat and the righteous inherit the Kingdom and the wicked are eternally condemned. There is no time for mass conversions or scientific study or anything else."

The scenarios I've suggested here are possible in the pre-trib dispensation view, which it seems to me that the OP seems to be following in his post. It's the only one that allows for there to be the mass conversion he is asking about. The person who needs to hear these answers from you about the rapture is not me, but the OP, as his post asks the question of a mass-conversion after the rapture.

"When Christ returns, wherever we are in our faith walk, that's where we remain. There are no second chances."

Yep.

Zecryphon

7th August 2007, 12:39 PM

Amongst whom?
My guess would be you and DaRev. But what do I know? LOL

DaRev

7th August 2007, 12:41 PM

"The "rapture" occurs on the Last Day. There are no "mass conversions", no scientists digging for evidence, no non-Christians dancing and rejoicing."

My post was in resonse to his proposed scenario of a mass-conversion after the rapture. The things I mentioned are possible under that scenario and do not reflect what I actually believe.

"When the "rapture" occurs, Christ sits on the judgement seat and the righteous inherit the Kingdom and the wicked are eternally condemned. There is no time for mass conversions or scientific study or anything else."

The scenarios I've suggested here are possible in the pre-trib dispensation view, which it seems to me that the OP seems to be following in his post. It's the only one tha allows for there to be the mass conversion he is asking about. The person who needs to hear these answers from you about the rapture is not me, but the OP, as his post asks the question of a mass-conversion after the rapture.

"When Christ returns, wherever we are in our faith walk, that's where we remain. There are no second chances."

Yep.

:thumbsup: Understood.

GratiaCorpusChristi

7th August 2007, 12:56 PM

My post regarding Dr. Brighton's commentary was simply to make known a resource for studying the Book of Revelation. Certainly any study of the end times would need to include Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, and a number of other passages.
And speaking, of which, have you read two of the books I recommended, The Last Days According to Jesus (Sproul) or A Case for Amillenialism (Riddlebarger)?

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 01:15 PM

And speaking, of which, have you read two of the books I recommended, The Last Days According to Jesus (Sproul) or A Case for Amillenialism (Riddlebarger)?
I have the Riddlebarger book; it is by far the broadest impeachment of dispensational eschatology. Particularly good is the exposition he gives to the core texts: Daniel's 70 weeks, the Olivet discourse, "All Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11), and of course, Revelation 20. The book is worth the money just for those portions alone.

Sproul, as I understand it, has migrated to the post-millennial side, which is explicitly condemned in our Confessions.

5] They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.

GratiaCorpusChristi

7th August 2007, 01:22 PM

I have the Riddlebarger book; it is by far the broadest impeachment of dispensational eschatology. Particularly good is the exposition he gives to the core texts: Daniel's 70 weeks, the Olivet discourse, "All Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11), and of course, Revelation 20. The book is worth the money just for those portions alone.

Sproul, as I understand it, has migrated to the post-millennial side, which is explicitly condemned in our Confessions.
I don't know if he has migrated over to postmillennialism, although certainly the work upon which he draws most heavily in his book is Before Jerusalem Fell by postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry.

But if he has since migrated, there's no real evidence of it in The Last Days According to Jesus. That work is mostly written in support of orthodox partial preterism within a generally amillenial superstructure.

Glad to hear someone else has read the Riddlebarger book. Personally I think it's one of the most highly readable works of serious exegesis written in the past few deacdes (for all their problems, the Reformed- folks like Sproul, Stott, and Horton- are really good at producing readable but serious exegesis).

Which reminds me, have you, or anyone, read Michael Horton's God of Promise? It has it's faults but it's argument for the sacraments is readily adaptable for Lutherans if one simply removes the Reformed non capax and replaces it with the Concordian means of grace.

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 01:45 PM

I don't know if he has migrated over to postmillennialism, although certainly the work upon which he draws most heavily in his book is Before Jerusalem Fell by postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry.

But if he has since migrated, there's no real evidence of it in The Last Days According to Jesus. That work is mostly written in support of orthodox partial preterism within a generally amillenial superstructure.

Consorting with theonomists...:sick:

Glad to hear someone else has read the Riddlebarger book. Personally I think it's one of the most highly readable works of serious exegesis written in the past few deacdes (for all their problems, the Reformed- folks like Sproul, Stott, and Horton- are really good at producing readable but serious exegesis).D.A. Carson also comes to mind.

Which reminds me, have you, or anyone, read Michael Horton's God of Promise? It has it's faults but it's argument for the sacraments is readily adaptable for Lutherans if one simply removes the Reformed non capax and replaces it with the Concordian means of grace.Well, yes, if one removed the non capax... remove the cornerstone from any edifice and it will likely crumble.

Ah, I've drunk many a beer and consumed many a slice of pizza with Mike...good guy. Put the iron to his feet, though, and he will NOT confess to taking Christ's body and blood by mouth in the Lord's Supper. Nosiree!

C.F.W. Walther

7th August 2007, 02:13 PM

I don't know if he has migrated over to postmillennialism, although certainly the work upon which he draws most heavily in his book is Before Jerusalem Fell by postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry.

But if he has since migrated, there's no real evidence of it in The Last Days According to Jesus. That work is mostly written in support of orthodox partial preterism within a generally amillenial superstructure.

Glad to hear someone else has read the Riddlebarger book. Personally I think it's one of the most highly readable works of serious exegesis written in the past few deacdes (for all their problems, the Reformed- folks like Sproul, Stott, and Horton- are really good at producing readable but serious exegesis).

Which reminds me, have you, or anyone, read Michael Horton's God of Promise? It has it's faults but it's argument for the sacraments is readily adaptable for Lutherans if one simply removes the Reformed non capax and replaces it with the Concordian means of grace.It would seem to me easier to read what the BIBLE says than what man says.

Everyone has an "opinion" but only one of them is the truth. That's why so many mislead people will read the thousands of book written by "people" and not the one written by "God"

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 02:19 PM

It would seem to me easier to read what the BIBLE says than what man says.

Everyone has an "opinion" but only one of them is the truth. That's why so many mislead people will read the thousands of book written by "people" and not the one written by "God"
So, your house is devoid of all books except the Bible, Rad? You don't own any of Luther's works, no copies of Walther? Nuthin'?

Zecryphon

7th August 2007, 02:50 PM

So, your house is devoid of all books except the Bible, Rad? You don't own any of Luther's works, no copies of Walther? Nuthin'?
Didn't Carlstadt espouse something along those lines during the Reformation? That the only book that was worth reading was the Bible and all other books should be burned? I'm in no way suggesting that Rad is endorsing such a plan of action or has only one book in his house. I have no way of knowing, he's never invited me over. LOL

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 03:17 PM

Didn't Carlstadt espouse something along those lines during the Reformation? That the only book that was worth reading was the Bible and all other books should be burned? I'm in no way suggesting that Rad is endorsing such a plan of action or has only one book in his house. I have no way of knowing, he's never invited me over. LOL
Yes, I'm pretty sure Karlstadt did just that. I don't know about Rad, which is why I asked. I didn't want to put a bad construction on anything...;)

The funny thing is, I'm almost sure I've seen Rad quote from Walther before in this forum. I must be mistaken.

C.F.W. Walther

7th August 2007, 03:38 PM

So, your house is devoid of all books except the Bible, Rad? You don't own any of Luther's works, no copies of Walther? Nuthin'?Sure I do and they are books of our Lutheran/confessional faith and upheld by our synod not some "opinion" written by someone that has a "spiritual awakening".

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 03:42 PM

Yo, filo, looks likes you and me have to get rid of a bunch of our books!

filosofer

7th August 2007, 04:11 PM

Yo, filo, looks likes you and me have to get rid of a bunch of our books!

My wife would be thrilled!

In Christ's love,
filo

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 04:28 PM

Heh! As would mine!

GratiaCorpusChristi

7th August 2007, 05:52 PM

Sure I do and they are books of our Lutheran/confessional faith and upheld by our synod not some "opinion" written by someone that has a "spiritual awakening".
What in the world are you refering to?

Are you actually confusing Reformed authors like Sproul, Horton, Stott, and yes (Kepler) Carson with hyperspiritualized charismatics?

Seriously, man, Lutherans don't have a monopoly on good exegesis. I might only agree with Lutheran conclusions, but we have some things in common with the Reformed where we can dialogue to come to common confessions of faith over-against dispensationalists, Arminians, and Credobaptists....

But if being bitter and sectarian is more important than defending truths of the faith to you, I suppose there's no arguing.

Edial

7th August 2007, 06:28 PM

Luther073082,

A little bit of technical info. Most of us will refer to the events labeled as "Scenario A" you have described above either by its colloquial name "Left Behind Theology" or by its technical name, which is "dispensationalism," or (to be more technical) "dispensational premillenialism."(DP for short). It is "pre"millenial, because Christ returns before the so-called millenium, the 1000 years mentioned at the end of Revelation. This position is novel in that (as filo said before), Jesus returns not once, but twice. Once before the "tribulation" (this return is where the believers are "raptured" away before the 7 years of scary stuff) and then again before the final judgment.

It is an aberrant, heterodox view of the end times. It did not even exist until a manic-depressive Scottish girl had some "visions" which she was allowed to share with her church. A man named John Nelson Darby got wind of her visions, and systematized them and began preaching this new system. It was further systematized and popularized in the USA via the Scofield Study Bible.

Scenario B, on the other hand, is called "historical premillenialism" (HP for short). It bears this name, because this is the kind of premillenialism that we see in some of the early church. HP does not see Christ returning until after the tribulation, but nevertheless before the millenium. There are a few Lutherans who hold this belief, most notably John Warwick Montgomery.

The biggest difference between the two, however, is not immediately apparent. What really divides the two systems is that HP sees a fundamental continuity between God's people in the OT and God's people in the NT. In other words, you, I, Abraham and Moses are belong to the same {set} of people: those who belong to God.

Dispensationalism teaches a fundamental break between God's people in the OT ("Israel") and God's people in the NT ("the Church"). THIS IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF DISPENSATIONLAISM. All of its other errors flow out of this one.

The most fundamental hermeneutical mistake they make is to interpret the NT in light of the OT, rather than the other way around. (I have heard it said many, many times in DP circles that "Daniel is the key to understanding Revelation." This is 100% backwards. We interpret the OT in light of the revelation in Jesus Christ, which is what Jesus taught on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24).

In DP, the purpose of the tribulation is for the Jews ("Israel") to get one last chance with God before Jesus really comes back. What you have to understand is that in dispensationalism, the crucifixion of Christ was an accident. (EVERY DP theologian will deny this, but it is an impossible conclusion to avoid). IF the Jews had accepted Jesus as Messiah, His earthly Kingdom would have been established in Israel right then and there. No crucifixion.

Do you see the problem there?

The DP theologians refer to the "Church" as a parenthesis in God's ultimate plan. The Church is an "oops," a Plan B just in case the Jews rejected their Messiah.

This is getting longer than I intended...let me hurry up & finish...

Lutherans do not believe in a single antichrist who will rise up at the end of the ages to try to lead the world astray. This belief arises from a faulty reading of Daniel 9. John clearly states that there will be many antichrists, not just one.

We see the "millenium" and the "great tribulation" as happening concurrently, and happening right now.

...
I am really impressed with this post, Kepler.

You even covered the Posttribulational view that some Lutherans hold to (my view also).

Question, are there Lutherans that believe that the Anti-Christ is an individual? (That is my view too :))

Thanks,
Ed

KEPLER

7th August 2007, 08:08 PM

I am really impressed with this post, Kepler.

You even covered the Posttribulational view that some Lutherans hold to (my view also).

Question, are there Lutherans that believe that the Anti-Christ is an individual? (That is my view too :))

Thanks,
Ed
Well, personally, I think Ryan Seacrest is...never mind. I'm sure someone would take it as liberal America bashing if I criticized American Idol.

Zecryphon

8th August 2007, 12:39 AM

Well, personally, I think Ryan Seacrest is...never mind. I'm sure someone would take as liberal America bashing if I criticized American Idol.
Ryan Seacrest is an interesting choice. I have a friend who is convinced that Sanjaya is the anti-Christ. Also, if anyone has seen Howard Stern's movie, Private Parts, you know that Howard's former boss at K-Rock in NYC, is convinced that Howard is the anti-Christ. So many candidates, so little time. LOL

DaRev

8th August 2007, 12:40 AM

Well, Scripture does say there will be more than one... ^_^

Edial

8th August 2007, 01:57 AM

Does anyone have a serious answer to my question whether there are Lutherans that believe that Anti-Christ is an individual instead of the office?

DaRev

8th August 2007, 02:30 AM

Does anyone have a serious answer to my question whether there are Lutherans that believe that Anti-Christ is an individual instead of the office?

The LCMS position on the Anti-Christ...

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217

https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=580

Edial

8th August 2007, 03:04 AM

The LCMS position on the Anti-Christ...

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217

https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=580
I know LCMS position on this.

Are there other Lutherans, synods or whatever that believe that Anti-christ is an individual that is to come on the future?

Am I the only one?
I do not believe it.

Luther073082

8th August 2007, 10:13 AM

I know LCMS position on this.

Are there other Lutherans, synods or whatever that believe that Anti-christ is an individual that is to come on the future?

Am I the only one?
I do not believe it.

The ELCA rejects calling the pope or the office the anti-christ.

I belive the WELS has a similar position to the LCMS but I can not confirm that.

tannersf

8th August 2007, 10:17 AM

The ELCA rejects calling the pope or the office the anti-christ.

I belive the WELS has a similar position to the LCMS but I can not confirm that.
Good Post, Luther073082!

God loves you!

DaRev

8th August 2007, 10:48 AM

I know LCMS position on this.

Are there other Lutherans, synods or whatever that believe that Anti-christ is an individual that is to come on the future?

Am I the only one?
I do not believe it.

If you had read what I linked, you would see that the Scripture holds to a "climactic Anti-Christ" to appear.

DaRev

8th August 2007, 10:49 AM

The ELCA rejects calling the pope or the office the anti-christ.

That is because the ELCA is not Confessional.

Studeclunker

8th August 2007, 04:38 PM

This has been a facinating look at current escatology. Now, at the risk of being Bar-B-Qued, I'd like to ask a question, or rather a series of questions:

First, the escatology of the modern Lutheran church was largely formed five hundred years ago. At that time, things looked very different. Regarding the writings of John and the other referrences that the Revrand and others were kind enough to provide. The current promoters of the Rapture and End-Times-Theories are looking not only at scripture, but that which today may or may not fit into those passages. A very shaky idea, still worth looking into. I know we must not be 'blown to and fro by the winds of change and opinion' but does that mean that we also must wear blinders?

Five hundred years ago, there was no precedent of a country destroyed and depopulated being restored. Not only had that been accomplished with the re-establishment of Israel, but the unprecedented re-establishment of the ethnic people, religion, and language were accomplished as well. There is no precedent for this. That is, unless one looks in the Bible where this has been done to the same country twice before. Is this not worthy of examination?

Many of the things described in John's Revelation are labeled as metaphorical. I've had more than one Lutheran Pastor say as much. One pastor even wondered aloud at John's sanity when writing this book. Still, when examining many of these 'metaphorical' passages in light of modern technologies, the reformed, such as pastor LaHaye, come to rather interesting and imagineative conclusions. Whislt I don't agree with these conclusions, our own way of being somewhat, forgive me please, hidebound is regrettable. Were we not warned to 'keep watch continually' as our Lord would 'come like a thief in the night'? Were we not also warned:

"Look at a fig tree, or indeed any tree, when it begins to burst its buds, and you realize without anybody telling you that summer is nearly here. So, when you see these things happening, you can be equally sure that the kingdom of God has nearly come. Believe me, this generation will not disappear until all this has taken place...
"You must be vigilant at all times, praying that you may be strong enough to come safely through all that is going to happen, and stand in the presence of the Son of Man." (Phillips Modern English Paraphrase) Luke:21/29-32 & 34-36

Do I agree with Pastor LaHaye and the others in his camp? Not completely. I also don't think we should ignore entirely what is going on around us that is completely unique in history. The last two generations of Man have whitnessed miraculous technological advances never before possible. Things described in the Bible that could only be explained as metaphor are now, possibly, quite literally, in the relm of reality. I believe that much of the 'Left Behind' series is complete bosh. Still, it started out as a good read. What I would like to know is; do we hide our heads in the sand or pay attention to the signs and wonders going on around us? The tree appears to have burst its buds. Does that not indicate to us that our summer of promise has come?:scratch:

Now, I'm dashing behind that really large oak to await the slings and arrows sure to be aimed at me.:eek: :sorry:

DaRev

8th August 2007, 04:44 PM

Here's one thing to keep in mind...

Scripture interprets Scripture. History and technology do not. History and technology change continuously. Scripture does not.

Studeclunker

8th August 2007, 05:08 PM

Here's one thing to keep in mind...

Scripture interprets Scripture. History and technology do not. History and technology change continuously. Scripture does not.

This is most certainly true.

That said, does not scripture contain prophecy? Does one not use current events, etc... to determine if prophecy has been realized? During Jesus' time, the people of Israel were anticipating the arrival of the Messiah due to the prophecies of Daniel. They had done the math and knew his time was imminent. Even their godless king was aware of the possibility. He commited a heinous atrocity in fear of losing his crown.

Can that not also be applied to the scriptures prophesying his return? I agree with you that we must not go out on a limb like the Reformed have done. Still, do we not even prepare as we are cautioned to do? My daughter is (God help her) a member of a Charasmatic church. She refers to the Lutheran church as one described in Rev:3/1-6. While this doesn't bother me, it sometimes comes to me that we, the Lutherans, are not being watchful! Yes, we hold fast to the core of the faith. Yes, we (for the most part) don't stray in doctrine and theology. Still, we are not growing in the watchfullness of the world and the Lord's signs. We are cautioned several times by the Lord himself, to be watchful and prepare! I'm not saying we should do as the Mormons do. There is no need to store up seeds, grinding equipment, supplies, etc. Still, must we completely ignore what's going on around us?

KEPLER

8th August 2007, 05:10 PM

First, the escatology of the modern Lutheran church was largely formed five hundred years ago.

Actually, we inherited our eschatology from the RC Church. They are nearly identical, except that they anathematize historical premillennialism, and we do not.

Five hundred years ago, there was no precedent of a country destroyed and depopulated being restored. Not only had that been accomplished with the re-establishment of Israel, but the unprecedented re-establishment of the ethnic people, religion, and language were accomplished as well. There is no precedent for this. That is, unless one looks in the Bible where this has been done to the same country twice before. Is this not worthy of examination?
This begs the question: is the modern day reestablishment of Israel an act of God, or the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Dispensational christian groups contributed huge amounts of money to the Zionist cause in the late 19th century. IOW, if I go and plant a Fig Tree in my back-yard, do I get to call my neighbors and say, "Look! A fig tree has appeared! It is a sign!"
[/quote]Many of the things described in John's Revelation are labeled as metaphorical. I've had more than one Lutheran Pastor say as much. One pastor even wondered aloud at John's sanity when writing this book. [/quote]
He was wrong to do that.
Still, when examining many of these 'metaphorical' passages in light of modern technologies, the reformed, such as pastor LaHaye, come to rather interesting and imagineative conclusions. Whislt I don't agree with these conclusions, our own way of being somewhat, forgive me please, hidebound is regrettable.

I agree we are hidebound, but not in the way that you mean... You realize that in every age, people have had signs indicating that the end was near? How would like to have lived during the Black Death? Talk about Apocalypse!

For Luther's entire life, Europe was in danger of being run over by the Ottoman empire (which was identified as the "great bear in the North").

I think where we are hidebound is in not addressing adequately enough the very seductive nature of the dispensational heresy.
Yes, there have been some efforts; I remember Aaron Pluegger's little book. But there should be Lutheran expositor writing books and submitting them to general evangelical publishers, not just CPH. Mike Horton and his crowd have broken that market open, we could get some things published. Baker and IVP would do it.

We are waiting. Everytime we receive the body and blood, we are looking both backward to his crucifixion and resurrection and forward to his coming again. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Studeclunker

8th August 2007, 06:25 PM

This begs the question: is the modern day reestablishment of Israel an act of God, or the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Dispensational christian groups contributed huge amounts of money to the Zionist cause in the late 19th century. IOW, if I go and plant a Fig Tree in my back-yard, do I get to call my neighbors and say, "Look! A fig tree has appeared! It is a sign!"

I have to ruefully agree. Still, if that tree appeared miraculously, growing to maturity overnight from a twig, would you not be given reason for pause? As for the establishment of Israel, how do you go about defining the work of God? Can he not use whomever he wishes to do his work? In several cases in the Old Testament, the Lord uses godless men to do his work. Could he also use the faithfull?

I agree we are hidebound, but not in the way that you mean... You realize that in every age, people have had signs indicating that the end was near? How would like to have lived during the Black Death? Talk about Apocalypse!

For Luther's entire life, Europe was in danger of being run over by the Ottoman empire (which was identified as the "great bear in the North").

This is quite true. Still, as the Revrand says, "scripture intreprets scripture..." When one attempts to intrepret a prophecy one must take all the scripture involved to mind, must one not? In the case of the above, there were several holes. Yes, there were terrible plagues in the middle ages. These plagues were spread to the Americas and the Orient by ignorant explorers. Some of the native peoples of North America were completely wiped out by the efforts of Cathololic priests attempting to spread the Gospel amoung them. The Hurons, for instance. But I degress...
My point is that only one segment of the prophecy was presented. Christ said there would be wars and rumours of wars, plagues in diverse places and etc... He also said that the signs would be unmistakable for his return and to be vigilant. All of the parts of a particular prophecy must be fulfilled before it can be said to be manifested. Look at the enormous number of small prophecies that Christ fullfilled. He kept repeating, "that it may be fullfilled..."

My point was that there are an unprecedented number of prophecies being fullfilled at this time. These are coming in one generation as it was predicted they would. This requires our attention, regardless of the world's intrepretation. "These things were ordered of themselves..." Pharoh, in The Ten Commandments, by MetroGoldwinMayor (sp). This is what the world says to prophecy. Sadly, so do many Lutherans...

I think where we are hidebound is in not addressing adequately enough the very seductive nature of the dispensational heresy.
Yes, there have been some efforts; I remember Aaron Pluegger's little book. But there should be Lutheran expositor writing books and submitting them to general evangelical publishers, not just CPH. Mike Horton and his crowd have broken that market open, we could get some things published. Baker and IVP would do it.

This is exactly my point. I have no wish to see Lutherans gathering on mountaintops in white robes singing (ugh) Cumbyah (you have no idea how much I despise that song). In fact, the Apostle Paul warns against just such a thing (not the song, sadly, the useless gathering). In that, Lutherans have a very healthy outlook as to ministry and relating to the world. The suffocating self-righteousness of the Baptists and Nazerines often disturbs me. It also disturbs me that many Lutherans refuse to even consider that these may indeed be the times that lead up to Christ's return. To quote C.S. Lewis' character, Mrs. Beaver as she joyously cried out, "Oh! That I should live to see this day!"

We are waiting. Everytime we receive the body and blood, we are looking both backward to his crucifixion and resurrection and forward to his coming again. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

This is most certainly true! Praise the gracious Lord, in his most infinite mercy and lovingkindness, to include this most unworthy servant in his grace and mercy!

Edial

8th August 2007, 09:32 PM

If you had read what I linked, you would see that the Scripture holds to a "climactic Anti-Christ" to appear.
I read the links you posted several times.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti-Christ" (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

HOWEVER, this last sentence I just noticed ...

Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise ...

It appears to me that LCMS states that it is possible for Antichrist come yet in the future (even as an individual) as long as he bears the appropriate marks.

Is this so?

Edial

8th August 2007, 10:02 PM

This is most certainly true.

That said, does not scripture contain prophecy? Does one not use current events, etc... to determine if prophecy has been realized? During Jesus' time, the people of Israel were anticipating the arrival of the Messiah due to the prophecies of Daniel. They had done the math and knew his time was imminent. Even their godless king was aware of the possibility. He commited a heinous atrocity in fear of losing his crown.

Can that not also be applied to the scriptures prophesying his return? I agree with you that we must not go out on a limb like the Reformed have done. Still, do we not even prepare as we are cautioned to do? My daughter is (God help her) a member of a Charasmatic church. She refers to the Lutheran church as one described in Rev:3/1-6. While this doesn't bother me, it sometimes comes to me that we, the Lutherans, are not being watchful! Yes, we hold fast to the core of the faith. Yes, we (for the most part) don't stray in doctrine and theology. Still, we are not growing in the watchfullness of the world and the Lord's signs. We are cautioned several times by the Lord himself, to be watchful and prepare! I'm not saying we should do as the Mormons do. There is no need to store up seeds, grinding equipment, supplies, etc. Still, must we completely ignore what's going on around us?
The Bible urges us to refer to the nature and to the times in order to interpret the times.

It is unfortunate however, that our interpretations are often terrible.

For example, it says that there will be wars and rumors of wars.
And right below it states that these are like the birthing pains.
That means that the wars come and go, like the birth pains.

Also, interpretation of prophecies MUST be taken literally and EACH aspect of it MUST be fulfilled, otherwise it is not a fulfillment, ... just a "birth pain" of a true fulfillment that is to come.

Thanks,
Ed

Studeclunker

9th August 2007, 03:11 PM

Well put, Ed. Whilst I agree with all that you have said in both of your last two posts, it seems to have ignored several aspects of the previous century.

First, wars and rumours of wars. First World War. Largely a European theatre action. A birth pain, if you will. A war on a scale that had never been seen before, yet not quite a 'world-wide' war. World War Two. Now here was truely a world wide theatre. Such a conflict was unique in the history of man, or the world for that matter.

Yet possibly another birth pain.

But what comes after birth pains? A birth!

Israel was restored into it's original borders with it's native people, language, culture, and religion.

This is unique in history.

Will there be more birth pains? Probably. There are more than one event to occur in this series of events. The key to all of it is the rise of the Anti-Christ and the one-world-government (anyone read the book 1984?). All of this must take place before the generation passes on that was in place when Israel was re-established. That doesn't give us much time. Israel is now sixty years old. Was the re-establishment of Israel an act of man, or of God? We shall know in short order. If it was of man, it shall fall, again. If of God, well, we shall see...:eek:

RobNJ

9th August 2007, 03:28 PM

Not to intrude, but I found a link to page I referred to, back when I was a Reformed Elder.. one section has a history of where the concept of the rapture started.

http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/rapture.htm

GratiaCorpusChristi

9th August 2007, 04:48 PM

Bar-B-Qued indeed....

The idea that the reestablishment of national, ethnic Israel as a prelude to the endtimes is straight up heresy. That theology, dispensationalism, grew out of the nineteenth century work of Plymoth Brethren John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield, who interpreted Scripture such that Israel and the church were two different peoples of God. Christ, according to their teaching, rescinded his offer of the Kingdom of God to the Jews because of their rejection of him, and is therefore postponning the very Jewish, temple-oriented Kingdom of God until the future millennium.

The reason for eisegeting the rapture in this scheme is to remove the Gentile church from the planet in preparation for the conversion and rule of the Jews.

This has several major implications:

1. Most of the Bible is not applicable for the era in which we live, the 'church age.'
2. There are two distinct peoples of God, with two distinct plans of salvation. The Jewish people today are just as saved as we are.
3. The church is an unforseen parenthesis in the overall plan of God.
4. The law is a genuine means of salvation and was efficacious for the Old Testament Israelites.
5. Jesus failed in his messianic efforts during his first century mission to the Jewish people, did not restore a remnant community of the faithful Israelites gathered as his disciples and blessed on Pentecost.
6. We aren't under the new covenant. Indeed, we aren't under any covenant at all.

Don't buy into this nonsense. There are really, really good and sound reasons for interpreting Revelation and other apocalyptic literature symbolically, namely, because its apocalyptic literature, a symbolic genre. The millennial age is now, as Christ has estabished his rule by overcoming death and is pushing back the forces of Satan through his church.

Studeclunker

9th August 2007, 06:39 PM

Well, GCC, you make a strong argument. However, I find fault with it the same as I always have with said argument.

First, the millennial age.
Has anyone done the math lately? This is the year 2007 AD. Christ died, and rose again, over two thousand years ago. If this is the millennial age, perhaps it's a thousand years of days? Talk about pressing ones presuppositions on scripture. Are we then in the ten-thousand year reign? If so, Christ isn't taking a very strong hand in the operation of this old earth, is he?

As to the symbolic nature of the Book of Revelations, I've already said that it leaves me... confused sometimes. Really, the best explanation of the Lutheran viewpoint came early on in this discussion from the Revrand:

To clarify...

In Matthew 24 and 25 Jesus speaks of the end and His return. There was a feeling during the 1st century that Christ's return was iminent. The Chirstians at Thessalonica were concerned that their loved ones who had died would miss the return of Christ. St. Paul in his letter to them simply connects to Jesus' teaching in Matthew and assures the Thessalonicans that not only will there deceased loved ones not miss Jesus' return, but that they in reality will be the first to be "raptured" or raised to meet the Lord.

The events of Matthew 24 & 25 and 1 Thessalonians 4 are one and the same, and occur on the Last Day. There is no 7 years of Tribulation. The tribulation is ongoing. There is no literal "millenial reign of Christ" on earth. (Jesus said to Pilate at His trial "My Kingdom is not of this world.") The "millenial reign" is current. We are now in that period of time.

BTW, the term "amillenial" does not fit Lutheran theology. We prefer to call it "realized millenialism" because the "millenium" is happening right now. It is currently being realized.

My problem is that though this is a close fit, it doesn't quite cut it either. Frankly, it's a better position than that of the Reformed camp.

Finally, there has been much made about the first/second return. The same question was raised about the comming of the Messaih. There were two predicted by scripture. I've heard them referred to as Jesus-Ben-Joseph (the suffering Messaih) and Jesus-Ben-David (the conquering warrior-king). There was considerable debate on this and we now know who arrived; the suffering Messiah.
Now, here we are at the end of ages with the same debate going on. Scripture is again vague and we are second-guessing it.

Do I believe that there's going to be a rapture and the evil villinous Anti-Christ's rise to power? Wellll... may... be. Maybe not.

Should we dismiss this as a Heresy and ignore it? I don't think so. Here I think we should keep an open mind and our eyes faithfully watching vigillantly. After all, we, the Christian Church, have been branded Heretics by the Jewish congregation from which we have come. Never forget, the nation of Israel was the keeper of the oricles of the Living God for quite a while. He has never openly broken with them. In fact, I think it rather miraculous that they have persevered so long without a home to call their own. Indeed, the Lord must have had a hand in their protection and preservation.

This quote from Ed leaves me with the impression that our own denomination has an open-minded approach to this subject as well (bolding mine, underlining from Ed's post):

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti-Christ" (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

And so, that remains my position on this as well. Not complete acceptance, though interested observation of the idea and events as they unfold.

GratiaCorpusChristi

9th August 2007, 07:03 PM

First, the millennial age.
Has anyone done the math lately? This is the year 2007 AD. Christ died, and rose again, over two thousand years ago. If this is the millennial age, perhaps it's a thousand years of days? Talk about pressing ones presuppositions on scripture. Are we then in the ten-thousand year reign? If so, Christ isn't taking a very strong hand in the operation of this old earth, is he?

Not to compare our Lord with der Fuhrer.... But do you think Hitler thought his Thousand Year Reich would actually end in 2933?

No, of course not.

It simply means a long, triumphant reign.

Besides, if you're really going to interpret it literally, than you're going to run into the huge problem that both these verses and verses from ch. 19 come from the same chapter in Ezekiel (I'll get the reference later tonight) which is refering to a single event.

Plus, if you're a premillenialist, and you assume that Christ establishes his kingdom over resurrected saints, then you have to posit that the final rebellion at the end of the thousand years is the result of the FALL OF RESURRECTED SAINTS. A second fall, by resurrected saints no less.

If you don't find this troubling, heck, if you don't find my above points troubling, then there's a serious problem here.

filosofer

9th August 2007, 08:12 PM

Revelation 20

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

So, according to some based on the above passage, we have absolute 1,000 years, not 999 years and 364 days, not 1001 years, but absolutely 1,000 years. Yet, the "bottomless pit", "the great chain", and "a little while" are symbolic according to these same people.

Ah, yeah, at least they are consistent literalists, eh? ... ^_^

In Christ's love,
filo

Edial

9th August 2007, 11:38 PM

...Plus, if you're a premillenialist, and you assume that Christ establishes his kingdom over resurrected saints, then you have to posit that the final rebellion at the end of the thousand years is the result of the FALL OF RESURRECTED SAINTS. A second fall, by resurrected saints no less.

...
I do not understand this statement.
Please rephrase.

Edial

9th August 2007, 11:54 PM

So, according to some based on the above passage, we have absolute 1,000 years, not 999 years and 364 days, not 1001 years, but absolutely 1,000 years. Yet, the "bottomless pit", "the great chain", and "a little while" are symbolic according to these same people.

Ah, yeah, at least they are consistent literalists, eh? ... ^_^

In Christ's love,
filo

1. "Bottomless pit" is Abyss (abusso)
There is no "bottomless pit" in Greek.
Please see #6 as a good description what Anyss means.

bottomless
unbounded
the abyss
the pit
the immeasurable depth
of Orcus, a very deep gulf or chasm in the lowest parts of the earth used as the common receptacle of the dead and especially as the abode of demons2. "the great chain" IS a great chain that is seen in the spiritual world.
With it the Satan was bound.
Does it have links?
Sure. Otherwise John would not have called it "chain" as he was observing the heavenly developments and recording it meticulously, so we would see the picture of what he saw.

3. "a little while" - I am not certain what you refer to, the saints under the altar?

filosofer

10th August 2007, 08:57 AM

1. "Bottomless pit" is Abyss (abusso)
There is no "bottomless pit" in Greek.
Please see #6 as a good description what Anyss means.

bottomless
unbounded
the abyss
the pit
the immeasurable depth
of Orcus, a very deep gulf or chasm in the lowest parts of the earth used as the common receptacle of the dead and especially as the abode of demons2. "the great chain" IS a great chain that is seen in the spiritual world.
With it the Satan was bound.
Does it have links?
Sure. Otherwise John would not have called it "chain" as he was observing the heavenly developments and recording it meticulously, so we would see the picture of what he saw.

3. "a little while" - I am not certain what you refer to, the saints under the altar?

Several points:

1. I do know a little Greek. ;) I referenced English for the sake of those who might not.

2. But notice what you are doing: you are now spiritualizing "chain" whereas "1,000 years" has to be absolute physical.

3. I am not yet concerned with the interpretation, but rather, principles of interpretation (hermeneutics). So, why is it considered acceptable to demand that 1,000 years be an absolute literalistic time period here on earth and yet in the same context "chain" has to be spiritualized?

In Christ's love,
filo

KEPLER

10th August 2007, 09:17 AM

filosofer

10th August 2007, 09:20 AM

Now there you go using "facts" and "logic" again, filo. Does not Paul say not to be caught up in the vain philosophies of men (Col 2:8)? Is not "logic" a philosophy of man?

Repent, sinner!

[/sarcasm]

Oh, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do,

... oh wait, wrong movie. Do you like my furry tail? ^_^

In Christ's love,
filo

DaRev

10th August 2007, 11:18 AM

Somebody stepped on my tail!

GratiaCorpusChristi

10th August 2007, 11:34 AM

I do not understand this statement.
Please rephrase.
Supposedly, at the beginning of this millennium, there is one bodily resurrection of all the saints, and there are the people who rule with Christ for these thousand years.

At the end of the thousand years, there is a rebellion of people led by 'Gog and Magog' that leads to the final culmination of history.

Who are these people that rebel? The only people around are glorified, resurrected saints!

What premillennialists, classic or dispensationalist or otherwise, posit is a second fall of humanity by glorified, resurrected saints.

This is such a major problem that I can't even begin to take premillennialism seriously.

Studeclunker

10th August 2007, 03:30 PM

Supposedly, at the beginning of this millennium, there is one bodily resurrection of all the saints, and there are the people who rule with Christ for these thousand years.

At the end of the thousand years, there is a rebellion of people led by 'Gog and Magog' that leads to the final culmination of history.

Who are these people that rebel? The only people around are glorified, resurrected saints!

What premillennialists, classic or dispensationalist or otherwise, posit is a second fall of humanity by glorified, resurrected saints.

This is such a major problem that I can't even begin to take premillennialism seriously.

I find this theory quite disturbing. Yet, to suggest that we are currently in the millenum is a problem as well. The afore mentioned theory isn't so distrubing to me as to suggest that Adolph Hitler was able to do his heinous work during that same millenium reign of Christ! There is no way that I would believe God would authorize the slaughter of the very people he has chosen as his own. Not only am I including the 'chosen people, Israel,' but the church as well, as several million Lutherans, Catholoics and other Christians were killed in the camps also. The whole thing sounds more like theTribulation than the Millenum!

Sorry, fellas. This is where the other camp has a bit more ammunition in their argument against our escatology.

Yet, there are still problems with the Reformed viewpoint. I mean, really, ressurected saints rebelling against the Lord?:scratch:

Oh, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do,

... oh wait, wrong movie. Do you like my furry tail? ^_^

In Christ's love,
filo

LOL!:D Furry tail?:confused: To quote Robin Williams, "Oops! Sorry, an out of movie experiance." I don't get it, must have missed that one.:scratch:

Edial

10th August 2007, 05:23 PM

Supposedly, at the beginning of this millennium, there is one bodily resurrection of all the saints, and there are the people who rule with Christ for these thousand years.

At the end of the thousand years, there is a rebellion of people led by 'Gog and Magog' that leads to the final culmination of history.

Who are these people that rebel? The only people around are glorified, resurrected saints!

What premillennialists, classic or dispensationalist or otherwise, posit is a second fall of humanity by glorified, resurrected saints.

This is such a major problem that I can't even begin to take premillennialism seriously.
I see.

The people that are there during the future millenium are not all saints.

Some of the population are glorified saints that came down with the Christ.

Some are saints that became believers during millenium and possibly translated right there and then.

And some were unregenerated people that simply lived during the reign of Christ in perfect peace. But when the satan was released at the end of 1000 years, and there was no more perfect peace, they rebelled.

People that were destroyed were the ones that WILLFULLY received the 666 mark AND worshipped the beast.
(Just having a mark would not make one the follower of the beast).

The beast however, FORCED ALL people to get the 666 mark.
He also was KILLING the ones that refused to worship the beast.

There was a good number of people that possibly had the 666 mark forced upon them, but who refused to worship the beast.

They clearly would be in some type of a hiding from the authorities that were chasing them.

When Christ came with his armies of the Holy Ones, the one that had the mark AND worshiped the beast were destroyed.

The rest, were ushered into the millenium kingdom.

(Besides, there were a numbers of babies in the world that cold not worship the beast).

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

10th August 2007, 05:25 PM

Somebody stepped on my tail!
Long overdue ...

filosofer

10th August 2007, 05:50 PM

LOL!:D Furry tail?:confused: To quote Robin Williams, "Oops! Sorry, an out of movie experiance." I don't get it, must have missed that one.:scratch:

My poor imitation of the lion from Wizard of Oz, remember when that was made? ^_^

In Christ's love,
filo

DaRev

10th August 2007, 05:59 PM

I see.

The people that are there during the future millenium are not all saints.

Some of the population are glorified saints that came down with the Christ.

Some are saints that became believers during millenium and possibly translated right there and then.

And some were unregenerated people that simply lived during the reign of Christ in perfect peace. But when the satan was released at the end of 1000 years, and there was no more perfect peace, they rebelled.

People that were destroyed were the ones that WILLFULLY received the 666 mark AND worshipped the beast.
(Just having a mark would not make one the follower of the beast).

The beast however, FORCED ALL people to get the 666 mark.
He also was KILLING the ones that refused to worship the beast.

There was a good number of people that possibly had the 666 mark forced upon them, but who refused to worship the beast.

They clearly would be in some type of a hiding from the authorities that were chasing them.

When Christ came with his armies of the Holy Ones, the one that had the mark AND worshiped the beast were destroyed.

The rest, were ushered into the millenium kingdom.

(Besides, there were a numbers of babies in the world that cold not worship the beast).

Thanks,
Ed

Well, that's all fiction anyway so we don't need to worry about it.

Edial

10th August 2007, 06:15 PM

Several points:

1. I do know a little Greek. ;) I referenced English for the sake of those who might not.

2. But notice what you are doing: you are now spiritualizing "chain" whereas "1,000 years" has to be absolute physical.

3. I am not yet concerned with the interpretation, but rather, principles of interpretation (hermeneutics). So, why is it considered acceptable to demand that 1,000 years be an absolute literalistic time period here on earth and yet in the same context "chain" has to be spiritualized?

In Christ's love,
filo

"Spiritual" does not mean "symbolic".

Spiritual and physical as both very literal, each in it's own world.

The Elijah had his spiritual eyes opened he saw the very real spiritual chariots just waiting to pounce.

When Balaam's spiritual eyes opened he saw the very real angel with a drawn sword about to chop him down.

The great mistake we are making is when we try symbolizing the spiritual AS IF ir does not exist. :)

Does the throne of God look exactly as defined in the Revelation? But of course!

Also, please let's not forget that ONLY to God the time is irrelevant.
All of the creation on earth, under the earth and heaven is under the limitations of time untill time ends.

The time had a beginning and will have an end.

Look at the text concerning the 1000 years with an open mind and you tell me if it is not literal.
(And I can assure you that I am not bad at the hermeneutics at all).
Being a Pastor does not make one necessarily a total authority in Scriptures.
Many laymen also have a calling for knowing the Bible.

One would need to disprove that 1000 years (with all the words around them like "until", "when") are symbolic.

The text is just too strong.

If we take texts on the communion literally, we should not dismiss these texts as symbolic.

REV 20:1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
REV 20:4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
REV 20:7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Also, to say that we currently live under the reign of Christ and that the devil is bound as we speak, is ... (I'm sorry to say) disjointed from reality.

The Lutherans picked up their eschatology from the Catholics and they/we desperately lack Scriptural support to say that millenium is happening right now.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

10th August 2007, 06:19 PM

Well, that's all fiction anyway so we don't need to worry about it.
Sure, since you call the Bible fiction, we'll make an opening for you at our ranks at ELCA.

Ed

DaRev

10th August 2007, 06:53 PM

Sure, since you call the Bible fiction, we'll make an opening for you at our ranks at ELCA.

Ed

I didn't call the Bible fiction, I called that premillenial story line fiction. None of that is what Scripture teaches.

Edial

10th August 2007, 07:26 PM

I didn't call the Bible fiction, I called that premillenial story line fiction. None of that is what Scripture teaches.
Oh, you'll fit right in. :hug:
Many of us here at ELCA also do not take it literally. :liturgy:

... don't you see that all we do is follow Catholic tradition concerning eschatology?

At least these guys could say: "Because we said so", and it is done.

But we cannot say it without the support of the Scriptures.

filosofer

10th August 2007, 08:09 PM

"Spiritual" does not mean "symbolic".

Spiritual and physical as both very literal, each in it's own world.

Of course, but that is exactly my point. The discussion is not around whether it is literal, but literalistic. Why is the 1,000 years literalistic and the chain is not - in the same context? The context certainly does not warrant that kind of switch.

The great mistake we are making is when we try symbolizing the spiritual AS IF ir does not exist. :)

Your mistake is assuming that we do not teach nor believe in the millennial reign of Christ. We do. (Go back a ways and find the statement about "amillennial" not really being the accurate designation for what we believe, teach, and teach).

Also, please let's not forget that ONLY to God the time is irrelevant.
All of the creation on earth, under the earth and heaven is under the limitations of time untill time ends.

The time had a beginning and will have an end.

Of course, those are true points. What you have written does not change nor support your perspective.

Look at the text concerning the 1000 years with an open mind and you tell me if it is not literal.
(And I can assure you that I am not bad at the hermeneutics at all).
Being a Pastor does not make one necessarily a total authority in Scriptures.
Many laymen also have a calling for knowing the Bible.

I have not tried to assert my authority as pastor in this discussion. Yes, I had mentioned that I know "a little Greek" (and this was an understatement at best): trying to make light of the fact that you seemed to "correct" me when no correction was necessary. I hope you don't see this as a barrier to our discussion. BTW I have studied this with an open mind for many years, long before I was a pastor, and many years as a pastor.

Yes, it is literal. But notice what you are doing: now you are forcing your design of the discussion into your framework. As you started this post, being literal or spiritual does not make it automatically symbolic. I have never written, nor does the Lutheran position state, that it is symbolic in the sense of being non-existent, any more than baptism is both symbol and the reality.

One would need to disprove that 1000 years (with all the words around them like "until", "when") are symbolic.

But the way you have phrased this, you seem to be supporting our position. I suspect you wanted to write: "One would need to prove that 1000 years are symbolic". But since I don't have to "prove" it is symbolic, because that is not the contention, I am glad you have relieved me of the burdern ^_^ ^_^

The text is just too strong.

No, having worked through this in Greek many times, and multiple English translations many times, the "text is just too strong" does not in any way support your stance on this. No matter which way you slice it. In fact, I would counter propose that "The text is just too strong" supports the very position we have advocated.

If we take texts on the communion literally, we should not dismiss these texts as symbolic.

I am not dismissing - in fact, I am taking them in the same way, literally, but not literalistically.

Also, to say that we currently live under the reign of Christ and that the devil is bound as we speak, is ... (I'm sorry to say) disjointed from reality.

It would appear so, eh? That was exactly the sentiment of those who witnessed Jesus dying on the cross. "If you are the Son of God..."

So, what about John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

The Lutherans picked up their eschatology from the Catholics and they/we desperately lack Scriptural support to say that millenium is happening right now.

We didn't "pick up eschatology from the [sic] Catholics". One significant step that came about from the Reformation was to examine everything from the perspective of Scripture and not accept it "because the Church has always taught it". Many things were retained, but to claim that we teach "desparately lacking Scriptural support" just isn't accurate.

In Christ's love,
filo

DaRev

10th August 2007, 09:30 PM

Oh, you'll fit right in. :hug:
Many of us here at ELCA also do not take it literally. :liturgy:

... don't you see that all we do is follow Catholic tradition concerning eschatology?

No, we follow the Biblical teaching regarding eschatology.

At least these guys could say: "Because we said so", and it is done.

But we cannot say it without the support of the Scriptures.

But we do have the support of the Scriptures. The Bible must be interpreted according to the genre in which each book and passage is written. There is no instance in the Scriptures whatsoever where the term "1000 years" means a literal 365,000 days. It is a reference to an age or a period of time.

The truth is we are currently in the "1000 years" of Christ's reign. Lutherans hold and teach a "realized millenium" as has been discussed here before.

Edial

10th August 2007, 11:58 PM

Of course, but that is exactly my point. The discussion is not around whether it is literal, but literalistic. Why is the 1,000 years literalistic and the chain is not - in the same context? The context certainly does not warrant that kind of switch.

Your mistake is assuming that we do not teach nor believe in the millennial reign of Christ. We do. (Go back a ways and find the statement about "amillennial" not really being the accurate designation for what we believe, teach, and teach).

Of course, those are true points. What you have written does not change nor support your perspective.

I have not tried to assert my authority as pastor in this discussion. Yes, I had mentioned that I know "a little Greek" (and this was an understatement at best): trying to make light of the fact that you seemed to "correct" me when no correction was necessary. I hope you don't see this as a barrier to our discussion. BTW I have studied this with an open mind for many years, long before I was a pastor, and many years as a pastor.

Yes, it is literal. But notice what you are doing: now you are forcing your design of the discussion into your framework. As you started this post, being literal or spiritual does not make it automatically symbolic. I have never written, nor does the Lutheran position state, that it is symbolic in the sense of being non-existent, any more than baptism is both symbol and the reality.

But the way you have phrased this, you seem to be supporting our position. I suspect you wanted to write: "One would need to prove that 1000 years are symbolic". But since I don't have to "prove" it is symbolic, because that is not the contention, I am glad you have relieved me of the burdern ^_^ ^_^

No, having worked through this in Greek many times, and multiple English translations many times, the "text is just too strong" does not in any way support your stance on this. No matter which way you slice it. In fact, I would counter propose that "The text is just too strong" supports the very position we have advocated.

I am not dismissing - in fact, I am taking them in the same way, literally, but not literalistically.

It would appear so, eh? That was exactly the sentiment of those who witnessed Jesus dying on the cross. "If you are the Son of God..."

So, what about John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

We didn't "pick up eschatology from the [sic] Catholics". One significant step that came about from the Reformation was to examine everything from the perspective of Scripture and not accept it "because the Church has always taught it". Many things were retained, but to claim that we teach "desparately lacking Scriptural support" just isn't accurate.

In Christ's love,
filo

What we teach does deperately lack Scriptural support.

We teach that the Millenium already started at Penthecost and is currently taking place and that the Satan is already bound.

Revelation was written way after the Penthecost.

As John was at Patmos he saw a vision.

Christ said to him ...

REV 1:19 "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.

Christ presented that he will show him the future.

But what we're saying is that it is not necessarily so, since "the future" that the Lord told John about in 70-90 AD ... in actuality already started happening way before that at Penthecost and the Millenium (the end of the Revelation) already started.

What is this?

Eschatology is not our forte.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

11th August 2007, 12:02 AM

No, we follow the Biblical teaching regarding eschatology.
Yes, of course.

But we do have the support of the Scriptures. The Bible must be interpreted according to the genre in which each book and passage is written. There is no instance in the Scriptures whatsoever where the term "1000 years" means a literal 365,000 days. It is a reference to an age or a period of time.

The truth is we are currently in the "1000 years" of Christ's reign. Lutherans hold and teach a "realized millenium" as has been discussed here before.
I am discussing this below with filo.

Studeclunker

11th August 2007, 04:39 AM

My poor imitation of the lion from Wizard of Oz, remember when that was made? ^_^

In Christ's love,
filo

Oh, yes.
"I do believe in ghosts! I do believe in ghosts! I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, believe in ghosts!" chanted the Cowardly Lion.
"You'll believe in a lot more than that," commented the Wicked Witch of the West, as she looked on through her crystal ball.

Yes, the Wizard of Oz, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor pictures, 1936 (I believe).

Sure, since you call the Bible fiction, we'll make an opening for you at our ranks at ELCA.

Ed

OO ouch! Play nice now...

I am discussing this below with filo.

Bad form Ed! You may not wander off somewhere else and discuss this in private! You, Filo, and the Revrand have been submitting the best posts here! C'mon now, this is just too facinating to wander off...

Edial

11th August 2007, 11:03 AM

...

Bad form Ed! You may not wander off somewhere else and discuss this in private! You, Filo, and the Revrand have been submitting the best posts here! C'mon now, this is just too facinating to wander off...
I did not mean to be abrupt with DaRev. :)

I just did not want to repeat things ... really. :)

GratiaCorpusChristi

11th August 2007, 12:42 PM

I find this theory quite disturbing. Yet, to suggest that we are currently in the millenum is a problem as well. The afore mentioned theory isn't so distrubing to me as to suggest that Adolph Hitler was able to do his heinous work during that same millenium reign of Christ! There is no way that I would believe God would authorize the slaughter of the very people he has chosen as his own. Not only am I including the 'chosen people, Israel,' but the church as well, as several million Lutherans, Catholoics and other Christians were killed in the camps also. The whole thing sounds more like theTribulation than the Millenum!

Sorry, fellas. This is where the other camp has a bit more ammunition in their argument against our escatology.

Yet, there are still problems with the Reformed viewpoint. I mean, really, ressurected saints rebelling against the Lord?:scratch:

LOL!:D Furry tail?:confused: To quote Robin Williams, "Oops! Sorry, an out of movie experiance." I don't get it, must have missed that one.:scratch:

Christ is ruling in his church and has ascended to his throne in heaven. But he is Lord.

His kingdom is established. It might not have complete control over this little rebelious corner of the universe, but it is established.

Did not Christ triumph over sin, death, and the devil through his crucifixion and resurrection? Yes!

Satan is bound. But who ever said that the millennium would be a time of unbridaled propserity? Christ rules now, in heaven- and it is his rule, and only his rule, that the passage in question promises. Not utopia.

You're reading your own thoughts about what the millennial kingdom means into the passage. Christ's kingdom is established. He established it by ascending to his throne.

GratiaCorpusChristi

11th August 2007, 12:45 PM

I see.

The people that are there during the future millenium are not all saints.

Some of the population are glorified saints that came down with the Christ.

Some are saints that became believers during millenium and possibly translated right there and then.

And some were unregenerated people that simply lived during the reign of Christ in perfect peace. But when the satan was released at the end of 1000 years, and there was no more perfect peace, they rebelled.

People that were destroyed were the ones that WILLFULLY received the 666 mark AND worshipped the beast.
(Just having a mark would not make one the follower of the beast).

The beast however, FORCED ALL people to get the 666 mark.
He also was KILLING the ones that refused to worship the beast.

There was a good number of people that possibly had the 666 mark forced upon them, but who refused to worship the beast.

They clearly would be in some type of a hiding from the authorities that were chasing them.

When Christ came with his armies of the Holy Ones, the one that had the mark AND worshiped the beast were destroyed.

The rest, were ushered into the millenium kingdom.

(Besides, there were a numbers of babies in the world that cold not worship the beast).

Thanks,
Ed
..... what?

According to your theory, Christ comes back to judge the world, condemns the anti-Christ to hell, binds the devil in a literal hole with a literal chain for a literal thousand years, and casts down the unbelievers with him, and he's visiblly doing all this and the dead in Christ are raised, and you're positing that there will be non-saints walking about?

Boy oh boy, I guess Christ isn't that impressive, is he?

GratiaCorpusChristi

11th August 2007, 12:51 PM

Oh, and 666 is a Hebrew numeric puzzle for Nero.

http://www.americanvision.org/images/Hebrew_666.jpg

C'mon guys. You're Lutherans.

Stop looking at the modern Middle East and Dallas Theological to interpret the Scriptures and start looking at the first century.

Edial

11th August 2007, 12:58 PM

Studeclunker

11th August 2007, 05:38 PM

..... what?

According to your theory, Christ comes back to judge the world, condemns the anti-Christ to hell, binds the devil in a literal hole with a literal chain for a literal thousand years, and casts down the unbelievers with him, and he's visiblly doing all this and the dead in Christ are raised, and you're positing that there will be non-saints walking about?

Boy oh boy, I guess Christ isn't that impressive, is he?

Quite the contrary, Christ is most impressive in both his magnanamous grace, love, and forgiveness.

I did not mean to be abrupt with DaRev. :)

I just did not want to repeat things ... really. :)

Sorry, Ed. I was just fooling around with you. Your previous post could have been intrepreted that you were continuing the conversation with Filo in another venue. Just kidding, honestly.:sorry:

Oh, and 666 is a Hebrew numeric puzzle for Nero.

http://www.americanvision.org/images/Hebrew_666.jpg

C'mon guys. You're Lutherans.

Stop looking at the modern Middle East and Dallas Theological to interpret the Scriptures and start looking at the first century.

It has always been my dearest ambition to be able to spend time in acedemia learning and studying. Sadly, life got in the way. I had to make a living and therefore never had the time or funds for the education that would have provided an understanding of Hebrew and Greek. Yet another unrealized dream of an old man.