Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 97
Joined: April 2013
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,297
Posts53,252
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,045
Tom 4,047
chestnutmare 3,086
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 24
Tom 12
Robin 5
Johan 3
Readin 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
NeoCalvinism
by Pilgrim - Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:26 PM
The Nick-name Calvinism
by Pilgrim - Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:06 PM
Natural Theology
by Anthony C. - Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:47 AM
Wilderness Wealth
by NetChaplain - Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:57 AM
Your opinion please
by Johan - Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:03 AM
True of False
by NetChaplain - Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:26 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
Below is a good article in one's man shift to Covenant theology, especially amillennialism. I would like to give it to others to read, but would like to receive The Highway forum of approval before doing so. Is there anything in the article that is circumspect? I don't see anything.

http://thirdmill.org/articles/dav_white/dav_white.Shift.pdf


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
While I'm not a big fan of "Third Millennium Ministries" nor "Modern Reformation Magazine" I'll give the article a good read and comment on any major issues I have with it... IF there are any. Nice to see someone embracing Amillennialism which I too believe is the most biblical view. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
I read the first section of the article while eating my lunch today and I'll reserve my comments (if any) until after I have read the entire article, but one thing stood out to me so vividly because I related to it so personally:

Quote
"Probably one of the most significant books I read in this connection was TheChrist Of The Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson. Simply put, this book explained all of Scripture in a way that dispensationalism never did. I have never read the Bible in the same way after I read this book. It was such a paradigm shift for me that I felt like I began to understand Scripture as a whole for the first time."
That particular book remains one of the most influential books I have ever read.


Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Just finished the article and although I might not be the best exegete, I found the article to be quite sound.
I would be interested in seeing more thoughts on the article.
Tom

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Okay, I thought the author's critique of Dispensationalism was fair enough, including both 'classic' and the revised "progressive' varieties. And, his reasons for rejecting Dispensationalism were accurate enough as well. It was smart to include a few examples of how the major proponents ignore CONTEXT and simply make assertions rather than offering their exegesis of a particular passage. This has always been the ground upon which I examine ALL claims of someone's beliefs.

My only criticism would be with the very last section where he briefly deals with Revelation 20. For some reason he chose not to use the same method he used throughout his article; exegetical error or non-existence of the passage but rather wrote that his objection to the Dispensational notion that the passage refers to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, etc. was that it didn't mention certain things, e.g., the rebuilding of the Temple, reinstitution of animal sacrifices, etc. Hmmmmm, asserting that Revelation 20 should have those things if it was a literal description is no less the error of those who he was critiquing, i.e., eisogesis. Why MUST Revelation 20 include certain elements? Obviously, God didn't think it was necessary to give a full description for His purpose for including that section was something other than to give one. The reader's task is to learn what it was that God wanted to reveal to us.

Lastly, ALL Premillennialists have an insurmountable problem with Revelation 20 when they try to read it with their wooden 'literal' hermeneutical method. One cannot say that the '1000 years' is literal and consistently interpret the passage. For example, is the Devil (a spirit being) literally bound with a literal chain? and then thrown into a literal bottomless pit? And is there a literal Lake of Fire and brimstone? One cannot simply arbitrarily pick and choose what one wants to be literal or spiritual to make it fit with one's preconceived theology/ideas. nono


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Pilgrimn
I like the way you dealt with the article especially the problems you had with it.
I was wondering if you could "flesh out " the questions you asked a little more.
I have always wondered how to deal with Rev. 20.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Go tribe
Any further thoughts on the article?

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrimn
I like the way you dealt with the article especially the problems you had with it.
I was wondering if you could "flesh out " the questions you asked a little more.
I have always wondered how to deal with Rev. 20.
There's not much more than need be "fleshed out" as far as I'm concerned.

Again, IF the "1000 years" is determined to be a literal 1000 years, i.e., one year being 365 solar days, then what warrant does one have to interpret the rest of the passage as 'spirital' vs. 'literal'. Is the chain which Satan is bound with literal? If not, then what hermeneutical principle warrants the switch? And, the bottomless pit certainly cannot be taken 'literally', for no such thing can exist; a pit that has no bottom. Can a 'literal' pit contain and restrain a spirit being? Amillennialists are far more consistent in their dealing with Revelation 20. The "1000 years" is understood to be a indeterminate long period of time with a beginning and an end which began when the Lord Christ was on earth and it ends when the Lord Christ returns to earth. The "chain" is understood as God's control over the Devil along with the restraint put upon him symbolized by the "bottomless pit", i.e., no escape possible from God's sovereign control of him. And of course, the Lake of Fire is likewise symbolic of God's eternal punishment which will be endless horrible suffering, aka: Hell.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
applause You said that it does not need to be fleshed out anymore, yet you did just that.
It helped me find another piece of the puzzle. Or rather, You gave me another piece of the puzzle.
Tom

Last edited by Tom; Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:19 PM.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 111 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
October
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,294,203 Gospel truth