Post Millennialism safe house

[JM]

I agree full preterism is a damnable heresy and the Old Testament Christians being raised with Christ is not taught in full preterism.

You left a random post without context.

 

[Hammster]

Anyone want to answer this question? It's a doozy.

It’s the end of the old covenant age.

 

[JM]

I've been listening to Michael Heiser and wow...

Any Postmiller's in the thread familiar with his work? How does it affect your understanding of eschatology?

 

[Hammster]

I've been listening to Michael Heiser and wow...

Any Postmiller's in the thread familiar with his work? How does it affect your understanding of eschatology?

Never heard of him.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Full preterism is against the rules because it is a damnable heresy.

Bob_1000, as he said in comment #380, was not presenting Full Preterism. Full Preterism does not acknowledge that a bodily resurrection for any saint ever takes place - not even in Matthew 27:52-53, which was the "First resurrection" of Revelation 20:5. Even the bodily resurrection of Christ they claim was a physical form that was abandoned when Christ ascended in Acts 1, according to some of the main leaders of Full Preterism.

Anyone want to answer this question? It's a doozy.

I do have an answer for Jeff Durbin and the man who posed that question for him. It's not such a doozy at all. The question is based on a faulty understanding that God has only scheduled a single, simultaneous bodily resurrection for all the saints at the close of human history. That presumed opinion is contradicted by the "FIRST resurrection" of that remnant of OT saints (144,000 of those "FIRST-fruits") who were raised in Matthew 27:52-53. If scripture describes a FIRST resurrection, there is of necessity AT LEAST a SECOND resurrection, with an allowance for yet another resurrection after that. Those Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints did not die a second time, because it is an impossibility for a glorified, changed, incorruptible, immortal body to die a second time.

The word "FIRST-fruits" was an Israelite agricultural harvest term for the barley harvest taking place at Passover. The next, second harvest in Israel was the wheat harvest celebrated at Pentecost, 50 days later (the "wheat and tares" harvest of Matthew 13). The next third harvest in Israel was the "Feast of Ingathering" at the close of the agricultural season in the seventh month. Attendance at Jerusalem of adult males was required on these three occasions in the OT.

These "harvests" taking place at the times of the "early" and "latter" rains in Israel were compared to bodily resurrections in James 5:7-8. God apparently was going to stage a set of bodily resurrections to match the Israelite harvest schedule that takes place at the time of year for Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Ingathering. Those three agricultural harvests were a symbol designed to match three bodily resurrection events.

 

[Hammster]

 

[Hammster]

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg6HVWTrlnkKXbIJmBZ_v3RnxGZa8xttt&si=hvlLUFOfD78_a2Z0

 

[JM]

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg6HVWTrlnkKXbIJmBZ_v3RnxGZa8xttt&si=hvlLUFOfD78_a2Z0

Postmil is growing.

People are trusting in God's promises found throughout scripture and even though they kills us all the day long we have hope.

 

[JM]

Another banger.

 

[JM]

Another chart.

 

[3 Resurrections]

This Bruce Gore video above had a very engaging testimony. It's always good to hear about someone's path to their current position of understanding. I listened to this video in its entirety, and he made some good points about a "theology of hope", but it was rather generic in content. So I went poking around just a bit for some more of his videos where he might dive deeper, and found one where he identifies Nero as the 666 character using gematria. That is a rather common belief among Partial Preterists, but its incorrect to even employ that method for calculating the 666 number, which instead refers to a timespan of six-hundred-and-sixty-six years for the Sea Beast's existence prior to John's time of writing Revelation.

But I'll keep looking through some more of his podcasts for other material. Thanks for posting this JM.

Oh, and you need a couple of dates on your Millennium chart above. It began in 968/967 BC with the foundation stone of Solomon's temple laid down, and ended with the "First Resurrection" of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 First-fruits in AD 33 when Satan was released on that day for only a "short time" until his AD 70 destruction.

 

[JM]

This Bruce Gore video above had a very engaging testimony. It's always good to hear about someone's path to their current position of understanding. I listened to this video in its entirety, and he made some good points about a "theology of hope", but it was rather generic in content. So I went poking around just a bit for some more of his videos where he might dive deeper, and found one where he identifies Nero as the 666 character using gematria. That is a rather common belief among Partial Preterists, but its incorrect to even employ that method for calculating the 666 number, which instead refers to a timespan of six-hundred-and-sixty-six years for the Sea Beast's existence prior to John's time of writing Revelation.

But I'll keep looking through some more of his podcasts for other material. Thanks for posting this JM.

Oh, and you need a couple of dates on your Millennium chart above. It began in 968/967 BC with the foundation stone of Solomon's temple laid down, and ended with the "First Resurrection" of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 First-fruits in AD 33 when Satan was released on that day for only a "short time" until his AD 70 destruction.

Aye, that chart is not of my making. This one is...

 

[3 Resurrections]

JM, your chart has Satan loosed after AD 70. That can't be right. Satan was loosed on earth for a "short time"(aka the "little season") after the millennium ended, which was the same point in time when the "First Resurrection" occurred, according to Revelation 20:5.

"Christ the First-fruits" and the Matthew 27 resurrected saints formed that "First resurrection" back in AD 33. While Christ's body was in the grave, the battle in heaven pitted Satan and his devils against Michael and his angels. When Christ arose from the grave and ascended for the first time that same day, Satan forever lost his ability to accuse the brethren anymore, and was cast out down to earth with his devils. John warned the disciples that Satan had already come down to them in great wrath in those days, knowing he only had a "short time" (Revelation 12:12).

This loosing of a wrathful Satan and his angels on earth to once again deceive the nations at the end of the millennium in AD 33 was responsible for the increase in deception in those first-century days leading up to the Great Tribulation between AD 66-70.

 

[JM]

JM, your chart has Satan loosed after AD 70. That can't be right. Satan was loosed on earth for a "short time"(aka the "little season") after the millennium ended, which was the same point in time when the "First Resurrection" occurred, according to Revelation 20:5.

"Christ the First-fruits" and the Matthew 27 resurrected saints formed that "First resurrection" back in AD 33. While Christ's body was in the grave, the battle in heaven pitted Satan and his devils against Michael and his angels. When Christ arose from the grave and ascended for the first time that same day, Satan forever lost his ability to accuse the brethren anymore, and was cast out down to earth with his devils. John warned the disciples that Satan had already come down to them in great wrath in those days, knowing he only had a "short time" (Revelation 12:12).

This loosing of a wrathful Satan and his angels on earth to once again deceive the nations at the end of the millennium in AD 33 was responsible for the increase in deception in those first-century days leading up to the Great Tribulation between AD 66-70.

We have a different understanding of Revelation and the loosing of Satan.

 

[3 Resurrections]

We have a different understanding of Revelation and the loosing of Satan.

Of course. Mine is a literal post-millennial loosing of Satan after the "First Resurrection", which is an event that belonged to "Christ the First-fruits" back in AD 33. So what we really differ on is a definition of what the "First resurrection" actually was.

 

[JM]

I accept the historical judgment of Luther in the Smalcald Articles, the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions of faith in stating that the Pope is the Antichrist.

The papacy in its historical manifestations is the Man of Lawlessness:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,[a] 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,[c] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Source: Antichrist

Apology XV, 18,19:

And what need is there of words on a subject so manifest? If the adversaries defend these human services as meriting justification, grace, and the remission of sins, they simply establish the kingdom of Antichrist. For the kingdom of Antichrist is a new service of God, devised by human authority rejecting Christ, just as the kingdom of Mahomet has services and works through which it wishes to be justified before God; nor does it hold that men are gratuitously justified before God by faith, for Christ’s sake. Thus the Papacy also will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it thus defends human services as justifying. For the honor is taken away from Christ when they teach that we are not justified gratuitously by faith, for Christ’s sake, but by such services; especially when they teach that such services are not only useful for justification, but are also necessary, as they hold above in Art. VII, where they condemn us for saying that unto true unity of the Church it is not necessary that rites instituted by men should everywhere be alike. Daniel 11:38 indicates that new human services will be the very form and constitution of the kingdom of Antichrist. For he says thus: “But in his estate shall he honor the god of forces; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver and precious stones.”

Apology XXIV, 97,98:

Carnal men cannot endure that alone to the sacrifice of Christ the honor is ascribed that it is a propitiation, because they do not understand the righteousness of faith, but ascribe equal honor to the rest of the services and sacrifices. Just as, therefore, in Judah among the godless priests a false opinion concerning sacrifices inhered; just as in Israel, Baalitic services continued, and nevertheless, a Church of God was there which disapproved of godless services, so Baalitic worship inheres in the domain of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they apply, that by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission of guilt and punishment. [And yet, as God still kept His Church, i.e., some saints, in Israel and Judah, so God still preserved His Church, i.e., some saints, under the Papacy, so that the Christian Church has not entirely perished.] And it seems that this Baalitic worship will endure as long as the reign of the Pope, until Christ will come to judge, and by the glory of His advent destroy the reign of Antichrist.

Smalcald Articles II, II, 25:

The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing, as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we are not in need of calling upon the saints].

Smalcald Articles II, IV, 10-14, (cf. also Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, X, 20):

This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God, as Paul says (2 Th 2:4). Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians.

The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God’s name. This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven. And when we distinguish the Pope’s teaching from, or measure and hold it against, Holy Scripture, it is found [it appears plainly] that the Pope’s teaching, where it is best, has been taken from the imperial and heathen law, and treats of political matters and decisions or rights as the Decretals show; furthermore, it teaches of ceremonies concerning churches, garments, food, persons and (similar) puerile, theatrical, and comical things without measure, but in all these things nothing at all of Christ, faith, and the commandments of God. Lastly, it is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges [and disseminates] his [papal] falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one’s own works and [fictitious] divine worship (for this is the very Papacy) [upon each of which the Papacy is altogether founded and is standing,] and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations [of the Pope] above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 39-41:

Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, 2 Th 2:3, in describing to the Thessalonians Antichrist, calls him “an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God.” He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel and will assume to himself divine authority.

Moreover, it is manifest, in the first place, that the Pope rules in the Church, and by the pretext of ecclesiastical authority and of the ministry has established for himself this kingdom. For he assigns as a pretext these words: “I will give to thee the keys.” Secondly, the doctrine of the Pope conflicts in many ways with the Gospel, and [thirdly] the Pope assumes to himself divine authority in a threefold manner. First, because he takes to himself the right to change the doctrine of Christ and services instituted by God, and wants his own doctrine and his own services to be observed as divine; secondly, because he takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also the jurisdiction over souls after this life; thirdly, because the Pope does not want to be judged by the Church or by anyone, and puts his own authority ahead of the decision of Councils and the entire Church. But to be unwilling to be judged by the Church or by anyone is to make oneself God. Lastly, these errors so horrible, and this impiety, he defends with the greatest cruelty, and puts to death those dissenting.

This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope. On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded, Mt 7:15: “Beware of false prophets.” And Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and execrated as cursed, Gal 1:8; Tit 3:10; and in 2 Co 6:14 he says: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: For what communion hath light with darkness?”

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 57:

Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

A useful link with 75 classic biblical commentaries.

Bible Commentaries

Over 75 online Bible Commentaries - Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Calvin, Spurgeon, Gill, Keil & Delitzsch, etc.

www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com

 

[JM]

 

[JM]

Pastor Bramwell responses to a very short comment on one of his videos.

 

[JM]

Excellent sermon on the Two Kingdoms.

Pastor Poppe Sermons - Easter 6. 1 Timothy 2:1-6. "Two Kingdoms" - Podcast Addict

Listen to Pastor Poppe Sermons - Easter 6. 1 Timothy 2:1-6. "Two Kingdoms" by Clint Poppe on Podcast Addict. Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. Lincoln, Nebraska. May 14, 2023. Rev. Clint K Poppe

podcastaddict.com