Exact quotes of what? Origen's allegorizing? That's common knowledge. As to gnosticism, yes, I know he formally opposed Gnosticism. I also know, per Boersma, that Origen asserted that he valued the historical sense. I don't think he did in practice, though.Glad to see that you have researched this. Please present exact quotes instead of people’s opinions.
Please furnish us with any direct quotes from Origen supporting Gnosticism. I have never seen them. Opinion is inadmissible, apart from a democratic impeachment inquiry.I am not sure what you think my supposition was. I was simply demonstrating that I was painfully familiar with Origen (I always feel dirty after reading him).
I already admitted I was using gnosticism in a loose sense, as in Origen's denigrating matter and history (and ultimately coming close to eternal return, per Maximus).Please furnish us with any direct quotes supporting Gnosticism. I have never seen them. Opinion is inadmissible, apart from a democratic impeachment inquiry.
His mind seems to be totally closed off to any proof for premil, very similar to how Kjvo see their pet doctrine!I already admitted I was using gnosticism in a loose sense, as in Origen's denigrating matter and history (and ultimately coming close to eternal return, per Maximus).
I also find it amusing that I am being told what is and isn't admissible. You have these weird standards of what is proper and what isn't (usually something to do with corroboration).
Also, I checked your profile. You haven't posted on anything that isn't eschatology related.
But you are writing off an early church father with zero factual evidence and just mere personal opinion, similar to what to how the Democrats are pushing impeachment. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." The ball is in your court! It seems like you simply want to discredit Origen to prove the popular Premil lie that Augustine was the first orthodox Amiller.I already admitted I was using gnosticism in a loose sense, as in Origen's denigrating matter and history (and ultimately coming close to eternal return, per Maximus).
And you are not wedded to Premil???His mind seems to be totally closed off to any proof for premil, very similar to how Kjvo see their pet doctrine!
I am not writing off Origen because I think he is a gnostic. That was tongue in cheek (and I revised as much). And it is not my personal opinion. He was largely condemned in the East after Justinian. I spent most of a decade studying the various Origenistic crises.But you are writing off an early church father with zero factual evidence and just mere personal opinion, similar to what to how the Democrats are pushing impeachment. The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." The ball is in your court! It seems like you simply want to discredit Origen to prove the popular Premil lie that Augustine was the first orthodox Amiller.
Please furnish direct quotes of the “abominable ... parts” in Origen’s theology. To be quite blunt, personal opinion means nothing.I am not writing off Origen because I think he is a gnostic. That was tongue in cheek (and I revised as much). And it is not my personal opinion. He was largely condemned in the East after Justinian. I spent most of a decade studying the various Origenistic crises.
I've read Origen's Peri Archon at least twice. I've read most of his commentary on John. I've read key passages from Joshua. I've read the first part of Against Celsus.
Again, you say I "allege," but I am not sure what you think I am alleging.
I admire him that he was tortured for his faith. He stood up well. His theology is abominable in parts..
Believe me, I speak and write on a lot of subjects. I often preach three times a week. Most of that is devotional. This is only one of many topics that I have an interest in. I just so happen to be writing a number of books on the subject at the moment. That might explain why I’m focused on the subject here.And you didn't respond to my statement that you only post about eschatology. I double-checked on your profile.
Why do Premils always sink to ad hominem when they cannot answer the questions?His mind seems to be totally closed off to any proof for premil, very similar to how Kjvo see their pet doctrine!
And who are they? The saints in glory now reigning with a victorious Christ.Revelation 20 describes still future event, as those who died at hands of Antichrist were raised back from death to reign with Jesus, it's right there in the passage!
Except that prior chapter describes Jesus coming to earth, to defeat Antichrist, and then go into reigning in Chspter 20, do Jesus on Earth at that time.Why do Premils always sink to ad hominem when they cannot answer the questions?
And who are they? The saints in glory now reigning with a victorious Christ.
George Ladd view on this, Kingdom here in part but not yet in full, as Jesus is High Priest in Heaven now, but will be direct reigning here when His Kingdom comes in full at return.And you are not wedded to Premil???
How can you hold such a doctrine when you admit all you have is Rev 20? At least I am presenting multiple Scripture to support the Amil position.
That is because Revelation 20 is the 7th of 7 recaps in the apocalypse, all ending with His climactic return. Surely you do not believe there are several second comings of Christ? As I have shown, and as you have repeatedly ignored, the climactic detail of Rev 19 forbids the Premil position. This is reinforced with the lack of any other corroborative detail to support your theory. If you had it, you would give it.Except that prior chapter describes Jesus coming to earth, to defeat Antichrist, and then go into reigning in Chspter 20, do Jesus on Earth at that time.
... yes, but not on a new earth similar to this one, corrupted with sin, sinners, death, decay and the devil.George Ladd view on this, Kingdom here in part but not yet in full, as Jesus is High Priest in Heaven now, but will be direct reigning here when His Kingdom comes in full at return.
Since abandoning Premil I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premil doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.Iadmit that Chapter 20 describes. Premil position, but far from only passage !
The kingdom age of King Jesus has no sickness, war, disease, where do you get that we say it does,?... yes, but not on a new earth similar to this one, corrupted with sin, sinners, death, decay and the devil.
Anyway, Scripture only recognizes two ages – “this world/age” and “the world/age to come.” One is current, corrupt and temporal and the other is impending, perfect and eternal. These terms are commonly used in the New Testament when contrasting the toil and trouble of the here-and-now with the glory and pristine nature of the hereafter. These two common phrases are found in different places in the New Testament, along with several other similar expressions, referring to time and eternity.
Premils invent a third age that was unknown to Christ and the other NT writers that is more of the same. They anticipate a semi-glorious/semi-corrupt kingdom that is half-liberated and half-bound. This undesirable mongrel earth is equally filled with righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and sinlessness, glorified saints and mortal rebels, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture.
There is the end of this Age and final stage end, eternal state after reign of Christ here on Earth.Since abandoning Premil I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premil doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.
(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine.
(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.
(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.
(4) Premil's interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scripture.
(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation. The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man. As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”
(6) Premil spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point.
(7) Premil lacks corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs on Revelation 20. Whether you look at the binding of Satan, the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming, the restoration of animal sacrifices in an alleged future millennium, a thousand years of peace, perfection and prosperity, two different judgment days, two different resurrection days, the rebellion of the wicked at the end of the millennium, these enjoy no other support in Scripture. I struggle with this, because the only way to authenticate and understand any doctrine is interpret it with other Scripture.
(8) Because these thousand years cannot be found anywhere else in Scripture, apart from the highly symbolic Revelation 20, Premil is forced to insert a thousand years in text after text where it doesn't exist. Objective Bible students should struggle with building their eschatology on the 3rd last chapter of the Bible, in a highly figurative setting, especially when we are supposedly talking about the 2nd greatest age ever. The scriptural silence elsewhere speaks loud to most of us!
(9) Premil is constantly exalting the power and influence of Satan and diluting the sovereign power and influence of Christ. That is nowhere more evident than in their constant rubbishing of Christ’s current kingship over His enemies at the right hand of majesty on high. Whether they mean to or not, Premils are always highlighting what Satan is doing in our day instead of what Christ is doing. Premil portrays a BIG devil and a small god; Scripture presents a small devil and a BIG God. In Premil, Satan seems sovereign in this age and God is curtailed. Premils are always lauding the ability of Satan since the cross. In Scripture, Christ is sovereign and Satan is curtailed. Scripture is always lauding the ability of Christ since the cross. As a consequence, Premil portrays an impotent beat-down New Testament Church, whereas Scripture sees a victorious potent New Testament Church invading the nations with the good news of Christ and subjugating the powers of darkness as they do so. In Scripture Christ reigns over all creation as God and His new creation as Saviour.
(10) Another major error that Premil makes is that it constantly presents the Old Testament as if the new covenant has never arrived. It is as if Jesus Christ has not come and fulfilled the old imperfect typical arrangement and introduced the new perfect eternal arrangement. It is as if the Old Testament promises have not been interpreted by the New Testament writers. What Premils insist is literal, physical, visible and earthly, the New Testament writers interpret as figurative, spiritual, invisible and heavenly. What Premils locate in their supposed future millennium, the New Testament writers locate in our current intra-Advent period.
(11) Because Premil lacks any corroboration in Scripture for a future 1,000 years’ age after the second coming, it invents 2 “last days” periods to allow Premil to fit. Mark 1 now, and Mark 2 after the second coming. Premils also invent 2 new heavens and new earths. Mark 1 they relate to their alleged future millennium and is sin-cursed and corrupt. Mark 2 is perfect and incorrupt and they equate it to 1,000 years+ after this.
(12) Premillennialists cannot even agree on the timing of the arrival of the new heavens and the new earth. They are split on whether Revelation 21 comes chronologically after Revelation 20 and therefore after the millennium kingdom and Satan’s little season in time or whether it is synonymous to that much-debated chapter and that the new heavens and new earth appears at the start of the millennium. This exposes another major weakness in the Premillennial camp: if they cannot even agree on something so simple and elementary as this in their main proof text, how can we trust their chronological approach to Revelation 19 and Revelation 20?
(13) Premil invents a 3rd group of humans that Scripture knows nothing of, that are too wicked to be raptured at the second coming and too righteous to be destroyed. It is these mortals, they argue, who populate their alleged future millennial earth. The reality is there are only two peoples in this world – the righteous and the unrighteous; those "in Adam" (the 1st birth) and those "in Christ" (2nd birth).
(14) Premil has an unhealthy obsessive focus on natural Israel, wrongly believing her to be God’s chosen people today under the new covenant. As a result, they have a mistaken fixation with natural Jerusalem in the Middle East, as if it is the epicentre of God’s workings with mankind on this earth and the place of His unconditional favour. This is wrong! They ignore much Scripture that shows that the fig tree has been cut down, the kingdom of God has been removed from Israel. Ancient Jerusalem and the temple therein was merely an Old Testament imperfect shadow of the heavenly reality that was revealed at the first advent. The New Testament repeatedly teaches that we have become one with spiritual believing Israel in the OT. It makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one new man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time!
(15) General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the living and the dead,” “every man,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men every where,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. This shows that the Premil’s boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.
(16) Premil takes common linguistic terms that are easily understood by the unindoctrinated observer in any language to mean the opposite to what they actually say. For example, Premil does not believe that "first" means first and "last" means last. The English words “first” and “last” are taken from the Greek words protos and eschatos and are widely accepted by all unbiased theologians to denote exactly what they say. The word protos means first, as in the foremost in time, place, order or importance. The word eschatos on the other hand means end, last, farthest and final. It is explicitly clear from their usage, meaning and context in the New Testament that these words are the exact antithesis of each other.
(17) Premil does not believe that “the end” refers to the end. The New Testament word from which we get our phrase “the end” is the Greek word telos which refers to the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. the conclusion of an act or state. It is the termination point of a thing. When Scripture simply talks about “the beginning” without any other additional words or contextual reason to identify it with a specific event, then most sane theologians agree it is talking about “the beginning” of creation. Whilst all sound theologians agree on this many are inconsistent when it comes to “the end.” The reason I believe is because it cuts across a lot of their end-time theology they have been taught. But I believe we should treat both sayings similarly. Unless Scripture specifically identifies “the end” with a particular event or matter like “the end of barley harvest” (Ruth 2:23) “the end of the sabbath” (Matt 28:1), “the end of the year” (2 Chron 24:23), “the end of the rod” (1 Sam 14:27), or “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim 1:5), etc, etc, then we should understand it as the end of the world (which is the end of the age).
Exactly, you prove my point. The phrase "the end" is totally butchered by Premil to mean anything but "the end." Also, how many ages does Jesus and the NT writers speak of - 2 or 3?There is the end of this Age and final stage end, eternal state after reign of Christ here on Earth.
I have read the book on the 4 main views, and also have read the one that contrasted AMil and Premil published by Moody Press. Have you read The Blessed Hope By GE Ladd, as he helped to shape my current view.David
To be honest, it doesn't sound like you have done much reading on various views. The first book I read was The Meaning of the millennium Four Views edited by Robert Clouse. It opened my eyes to the various views. I believe Anthony Hoekema has some answers he worked through you can read here. Anthony Hoekema discusses some of the things you are bringing up in this thread. I would also recommend a more thorough book on the topic by Cornel Venema titled The Promise of the Future. He is very thorough and gives a great history of the teachings through the ages. The cheapest I found it was on Amazon. I also recommend William Cox's Amillennialism Today.
A principle when reading scripture is how we interpret obscure passages with more clear passages. That was important to me. A point of reference that helped me with this was on the topic of the binding of Satan. The Intervarsity Press book by Clouse was the first book I read and it helped me tremendously.
I am trying to locate another booklet I read that helped me a lot. I will get back to you on it.
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no intervening time-period or temporal age in between “this age” and “the age to come.” It is within the bounds of this juxtapose alone that we understand the whole eschatological arrangement, with its two unique diverse worlds. Johnathan Menn points out that the New Testament “gives us a clear, consistent and comprehensive eschatological interpretive structure. That structure is the ‘two ages’: … ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’. The terminology of the two ages is the key concept for understanding biblical eschatology. A proper understanding of how this age and the age to come fit together renders biblical eschatology both understandable and coherent.”Current age, Kingdom age, and eternal state.
The Messianic Age as foretold by OT Prophets should not be fully spiritualized in understanding future events.Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no intervening time-period or temporal age in between “this age” and “the age to come.” It is within the bounds of this juxtapose alone that we understand the whole eschatological arrangement, with its two unique diverse worlds. Johnathan Menn points out that the New Testament “gives us a clear, consistent and comprehensive eschatological interpretive structure. That structure is the ‘two ages’: … ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’. The terminology of the two ages is the key concept for understanding biblical eschatology. A proper understanding of how this age and the age to come fit together renders biblical eschatology both understandable and coherent.”