How Does The Glorious Millennium End In World-Wide Rebellion?

[John81]

 

I said that I wouldn't say anymore about this, but since you asked me some questions, I will oblige.

 

 

Well, yes and no...I don't read other men's books concerning theology, but that's me.  Since you mention this, I have to ask if you held this position for your entire Christian life, or did you become a Covenanter after being exposed to the writings/teachings/sermons of others? I'm not trying to be rude; I'm genuinely curious.

 

 

 

No; however, what I did notice was Jesus correcting them for their self-righteousness and their teaching for doctrine the commandments of men...they added to God's word and taught it as God's word.

 

I don't see what 2 Corinthians 3:6 has to do with spiritualizing anything...it's very literal.  We are made ministers of the new testament, not of the letter (the law).  

 

 

 

They will rule and reign with Christ...when Christ reigns on earth for 1,000 years.  

 

 

 

My point was...too many people's allegiance is to a movement, a doctrine, a denomination, or a system.  It wouldn't matter if the movement, doctrine, denomination, or system went completely heretical...those people would still fight tooth-and-nail for their movement, doctrine, denomination, or system...rather than staying true to God's word.  It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.

 

No sir, I do not hate and despise you. From what I've read in some of your posts, I think you're someone that I could be friends with. You seem to have a joyful demeanor, you present yourself as a gentleman, and you have an obvious love for the Lord. However, I believe you're wrong in your doctrine and your promotion of it; therefore, scripture says that I should have no fellowship with you.  

 

 

 

That also is a good point; however, those churches didn't have the full counsel of God as we do today.  Maybe I'm too hard-nosed about this, but man has no excuse for teaching error today.  We have the full counsel of God, and we also have the Holy Spirit to teach us as we read and study his word.  The problem is...as I mentioned above...too many give their allegiance to a movement, a doctrine, a denomination, or a system rather than to the Lord and his word...and many just want their own following because of pride.  They are willing (and do) turn their head away from error, adopt error, and eventually promote error in order to please men.

 

Am I saying that I'm above error? No, and there have been times that I've realized that I was wrong. Am I immune to error? No, I'm still human. Is that an excuse for error? A thousand times no!

 

Yes, we will both be "right" when we stand before the Lord, but that doesn't negate the fact that we will be judged according to our works in order to gain or lose rewards. Sadly, one of us will have this area to answer for, and it's a tremendously important area, because it has to do with the teaching of God's holy word...which he holds above his very name.  One of us will see this burn as stubble for tampering with his word. There will be no excuses. We will know we were wrong, and we will lose out on a reward that we could have cast back at the feet of the One who suffered, bled, died, and rose again for us.

 

He's the only One worthy of our allegiance...not Calvin, Arminius, Scofield, Preterism, or any other movement, doctrine, denomination, or system.  If any of them disagree with him and his word, then we are better off to lay them aside and stay true to him.  The Lord doesn't require us to jump through hoops, yet many are willing to jump through hoops in order to justify a man-made movement, doctrine, denomination, or system.

 

While I certainly appreciate your input here, I have to ask why you believe you can't fellowship with someone who holds to a different eschatological viewpoint than you do?

 

Christians have had the Word of God for centuries and throughout that time, different men of God have come to different conclusions when it comes to their study of eschatology. Some of the "greats" have held to nearly identical views on the key points of Scripture yet held differing views regarding eschatology.

 

Unless one is a fanatic about their eschatological viewpoint and can do nothing but focus upon that, I don't see why another Christian couldn't fellowship with them (unless you are using a different definition of fellowship than I am).

 

Thus far, I've only personally encountered a couple of people I couldn't fellowship with because of their eschatology (they were pre-mil, but it wasn't that fact that was the problem). It wasn't really their eschatology that was the problem, it was the fact they were totally eschatological centered and could discuss nothing and do nothing without it having some relationship to their eschatological viewpoint. If they heard a report on the news of a bird dying while flying over Damascus they would talk about it for days and how that all fit into God's plan of the end times and this would directly lead to this and that. If one wanted to discuss something with them regarding another aspect of Scripture they would yet turn it all into a Tim LaHaye novel. Even if someone tried to speak with them about their childs upcoming birthday, they would find a way to make it a Left Behind lecture.

 

Other than them, I know Christians who hold to pre-mil, mid-trib, post-trib, Amil, etc., and because their whole life doesn't revolve around that one view, we can have fellowship.

 

Anyway, not really "arguing" with you or anything, as I say, I appreciate you adding your points here, but I don't understand the point regarding fellowship.

[No Nicolaitans]

While I certainly appreciate your input here, I have to ask why you believe you can't fellowship with someone who holds to a different eschatological viewpoint than you do?

 

(unless you are using a different definition of fellowship than I am).

 

Romans 16:17

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 

Perhaps my definition is different.  In my opinion, the fellowship as viewed today is much different than the biblical definition and how fellowship was experienced by the early church.  Today, and this is a loose explanation, fellowship basically means to enjoy one another's company. Many churches have "a time of fellowship" during their services where you go around the church shaking hands and greet the other members. That's good, but it's not biblical fellowship.  It's just saying hello and shaking hands.

 

Many churches have "fellowship meals" together.  That can be part of biblical fellowship, but it doesn't entail all that biblical fellowship is.

 

Many Christians spend time talking to one another, laughing, sharing heartaches, etc.  That too, can comprise part of biblical fellowship, but true biblical fellowship is much deeper.

 

Biblical fellowship is a partnership.  It is to partner together because you share the same goals and beliefs.  It is to pool your resources together as one...to even share each other's financial burdens as one.

 

It's not that I couldn't laugh with Covenanter about life or sit down and eat a meal with him.  I would probably enjoy that.  But I couldn't partner with him. Preterism isn't simply a different Eschatological view...it's a completely different way of interpreting God's word.  

 

I know that it sounds harsh, and it's not my intention to harm Covenanter, because I do actually like him.  However, if I'm to avoid him because of doctrinal differences, I certainly can't fellowship with him.

 

I've purposely avoided commenting on his posts up until now out of respect and so as not to cause any dissension.  I shouldn't have commented on this thread.

 

I apologize.

[Covenanter]

 

Well, yes and no...I don't read other men's books concerning theology, but that's me.  Since you mention this, I have to ask if you held this position for your entire Christian life, or did you become a Covenanter after being exposed to the writings/teachings/sermons of others? I'm not trying to be rude; I'm genuinely curious.

 

 

I was taught a premil outline at Bible class, without understanding it. I was puzzled as it had never occurred to me that anything other than the eternal state came after Jesus' return. At university I heard more about the premil from users of Scofield, & queried the doctrine with pastors at uni & at home. They showed my from Scripture how to understand Rev 20 from the amil perspective, & how that understanding agreed with NT prophecy

 

Covenant theology is separate from eschatology - the NT is absolutely clear that the new covenant was inauguarated at the last supper & ratified at the cross. I could still believe in a future millennium & hold to covenant theology. My preterist understanding is relatively recent - about 10 years.  

 

My point was...too many people's allegiance is to a movement, a doctrine, a denomination, or a system.  It wouldn't matter if the movement, doctrine, denomination, or system went completely heretical...those people would still fight tooth-and-nail for their movement, doctrine, denomination, or system...rather than staying true to God's word.  It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.

 

I entirely agree, but I see that attitude with the premils who, except in your case, are following a century old tradition popularised by Scofield with his one volume annotated Bible which was made freely available to US Bible colleges. As you will see on another thread, they are resorting to slander.

 

Christians disagree on many things - the KJV translators were ALL infant baptists, & all church of England. Does that invalidate their work?  

[John81]

 

Romans 16:17

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 

Perhaps my definition is different.  In my opinion, the fellowship as viewed today is much different than the biblical definition and how fellowship was experienced by the early church.  Today, and this is a loose explanation, fellowship basically means to enjoy one another's company. Many churches have "a time of fellowship" during their services where you go around the church shaking hands and greet the other members. That's good, but it's not biblical fellowship.  It's just saying hello and shaking hands.

 

Many churches have "fellowship meals" together.  That can be part of biblical fellowship, but it doesn't entail all that biblical fellowship is.

 

Many Christians spend time talking to one another, laughing, sharing heartaches, etc.  That too, can comprise part of biblical fellowship, but true biblical fellowship is much deeper.

 

Biblical fellowship is a partnership.  It is to partner together because you share the same goals and beliefs.  It is to pool your resources together as one...to even share each other's financial burdens as one.

 

It's not that I couldn't laugh with Covenanter about life or sit down and eat a meal with him.  I would probably enjoy that.  But I couldn't partner with him. Preterism isn't simply a different Eschatological view...it's a completely different way of interpreting God's word.  

 

I know that it sounds harsh, and it's not my intention to harm Covenanter, because I do actually like him.  However, if I'm to avoid him because of doctrinal differences, I certainly can't fellowship with him.

 

I've purposely avoided commenting on his posts up until now out of respect and so as not to cause any dissension.  I shouldn't have commented on this thread.

 

I apologize.

 

Actually, I think it was good that you commented on this thread.

 

There are differing levels, per se, of fellowship. There is the deep level of those who walk together, attend the same church together, work together for the Lord and such. Then there is fellowship shared with other Christians on a much smaller scale which typically doesn't involve any partnership or working together. Similar to the difference between a truly best friend which one spends much time with and does much with, and a casual friend that one only sees once in awhile. That's closer to what I was thinking.

 

By your interpretation of fellowship, I can understand why you said what you did. While I believe one can have a measure of fellowship on a limited scale, which I would place there with your description of meeting with someone for a meal, you don't consider such fellowship. That's fine, as I don't see that our definitions of fellowship is the issue, more that we would both be wiling to have a meal and share a bit of time with a fellow Christian even if they held to a different eschatological view.

 

Again, I appreciate your input, and I do hope you won't limit your sharing of potentially helpful insights. Thank you for your explanation which makes your view on that point clear to me.

[No Nicolaitans]

I was taught a premil outline at Bible class, without understanding it. I was puzzled as it had never occurred to me that anything other than the eternal state came after Jesus' return. At university I heard more about the premil from users of Scofield, & queried the doctrine with pastors at uni & at home. They showed my from Scripture how to understand Rev 20 from the amil perspective, & how that understanding agreed with NT prophecy

 

Covenant theology is separate from eschatology - the NT is absolutely clear that the new covenant was inauguarated at the last supper & ratified at the cross. I could still believe in a future millennium & hold to covenant theology. My preterist understanding is relatively recent - about 10 years.  

 

Thank you for your answer to my question.

[Invicta]

 

I said that I wouldn't say anymore about this, but since you asked me some questions, I will oblige.

 

 

Well, yes and no...I don't read other men's books concerning theology, but that's me.  Since you mention this, I have to ask if you held this position for your entire Christian life, or did you become a Covenanter after being exposed to the writings/teachings/sermons of others? I'm not trying to be rude; I'm genuinely curious.

 

 

 

No; however, what I did notice was Jesus correcting them for their self-righteousness and their teaching for doctrine the commandments of men...they added to God's word and taught it as God's word.

 

I don't see what 2 Corinthians 3:6 has to do with spiritualizing anything...it's very literal.  We are made ministers of the new testament, not of the letter (the law).  

 

 

 

They will rule and reign with Christ...when Christ reigns on earth for 1,000 years.  

 

 

 

My point was...too many people's allegiance is to a movement, a doctrine, a denomination, or a system.  It wouldn't matter if the movement, doctrine, denomination, or system went completely heretical...those people would still fight tooth-and-nail for their movement, doctrine, denomination, or system...rather than staying true to God's word.  It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen.

 

No sir, I do not hate and despise you. From what I've read in some of your posts, I think you're someone that I could be friends with. You seem to have a joyful demeanor, you present yourself as a gentleman, and you have an obvious love for the Lord. However, I believe you're wrong in your doctrine and your promotion of it; therefore, scripture says that I should have no fellowship with you.  

 

 

 

That also is a good point; however, those churches didn't have the full counsel of God as we do today.  Maybe I'm too hard-nosed about this, but man has no excuse for teaching error today.  We have the full counsel of God, and we also have the Holy Spirit to teach us as we read and study his word.  The problem is...as I mentioned above...too many give their allegiance to a movement, a doctrine, a denomination, or a system rather than to the Lord and his word...and many just want their own following because of pride.  They are willing (and do) turn their head away from error, adopt error, and eventually promote error in order to please men.

 

Am I saying that I'm above error? No, and there have been times that I've realized that I was wrong. Am I immune to error? No, I'm still human. Is that an excuse for error? A thousand times no!

 

Yes, we will both be "right" when we stand before the Lord, but that doesn't negate the fact that we will be judged according to our works in order to gain or lose rewards. Sadly, one of us will have this area to answer for, and it's a tremendously important area, because it has to do with the teaching of God's holy word...which he holds above his very name.  One of us will see this burn as stubble for tampering with his word. There will be no excuses. We will know we were wrong, and we will lose out on a reward that we could have cast back at the feet of the One who suffered, bled, died, and rose again for us.

 

He's the only One worthy of our allegiance...not Calvin, Arminius, Scofield, Preterism, or any other movement, doctrine, denomination, or system.  If any of them disagree with him and his word, then we are better off to lay them aside and stay true to him.  The Lord doesn't require us to jump through hoops, yet many are willing to jump through hoops in order to justify a man-made movement, doctrine, denomination, or system.

 

 

 

On the other hand, you could both be wrong.  And the various points of view about eschatology are just that.  It is not doctrine but personal interpretation.  If you should read the Baptist declarations of 1644, 1646, and 1689, you will see that the Baptists at that time did not agree with either of you.  Would you not have fellowship with the early Baptists?

[No Nicolaitans]

On the other hand, you could both be wrong.  And the various points of view about eschatology are just that.  It is not doctrine but personal interpretation.  If you should read the Baptist declarations of 1644, 1646, and 1689, you will see that the Baptists at that time did not agree with either of you.  Would you not have fellowship with the early Baptists?

 

That's a good suggestion Invicta...it may be bad on my part, but I don't have an interest in reading things like that.  Well, if the mood hits me, I might.  I have a Church History book that I've had for months and months.  I was really excited to get it, and I dove into it for about 15 minutes...and I haven't looked at it again since.   

 

To be honest, there are many Baptists today that I wouldn't fellowship with.

 

I'm really digging myself into a hole.  I promise that I don't think that I'm perfect (there are people on this forum who know this).  I just have some convictions that I have been asked about, and I'm answering them honestly...and humbly.

[JerryNumbers]

That's a good suggestion Invicta...it may be bad on my part, but I don't have an interest in reading things like that.  Well, if the mood hits me, I might.  I have a Church History book that I've had for months and months.  I was really excited to get it, and I dove into it for about 15 minutes...and I haven't looked at it again since.   

 

To be honest, there are many Baptists today that I wouldn't fellowship with.

 

I'm really digging myself into a hole.  I promise that I don't think that I'm perfect (there are people on this forum who know this).  I just have some convictions that I have been asked about, and I'm answering them honestly...and humbly.

 

Please, don't apologize for stating God's truths. So sad, many will follow any breeze no matter which direction it may blow, & never make a stand. Seems they feel the Christian is never to take a stand, & never tell anyone they're wrong. And the fact is if we take a stand with Jesus, if we truly walk with Him, some will be offended. And they also believe your to fellowship with anyone who calls them self a Christian, no matter what they believe & teach.

[John81]

That's a good suggestion Invicta...it may be bad on my part, but I don't have an interest in reading things like that.  Well, if the mood hits me, I might.  I have a Church History book that I've had for months and months.  I was really excited to get it, and I dove into it for about 15 minutes...and I haven't looked at it again since.   

 

To be honest, there are many Baptists today that I wouldn't fellowship with.

 

I'm really digging myself into a hole.  I promise that I don't think that I'm perfect (there are people on this forum who know this).  I just have some convictions that I have been asked about, and I'm answering them honestly...and humbly.

One thing about Christian history books, one typically has to read such with a huge grain of salt, a lot of prayer and discernment, and it certainly doesn't hurt if one already has at least a basic understanding of history in general.

 

The problem is, most Christian history books are written by those attempting to either make their "brand" of Christianity look good regardless of the facts, or to make Christians in general look bad.

 

Oddly enough, the best Christian history book I've ever read was written by a Catholic and a Christian. That book had the most accurate history of the RCC I've ever read (most either leave stuff out and gloss things over to make the RCC look good, or they go to unfactual extremes to make the RCC look even worse than they are). Reading that book one could clearly see the corruption and worldliness of the RCC from its roots to the present (present date of the book). There was also an accurate putting forth of the "other Christians" who existed all along outside the RCC from its beginning (not since the Reformation as the RCC tries to teach) to today (time of books writing).

 

I found that book in a corner of our local library and decided to try it during a summer reading program when I was desperate to find anything at all that might be worth my time reading. Had I known the library was going to toss the book I would have wrote down the title and authors, and if possible I would have allowed them to give me the book rather than putting it out in the trash.

 

As to your positions, I don't see you trying to force your personal convictions for separation upon others, simply stating them, which is appropriate.

 

There are a number of IFB and other Baptist churches in this area that are little different than many of the "protestant" churches around. Again, nothing wrong with you pointing out the truth there either.

 

Speaking in general now, not specifically to you, I respect any Christian who can put forth a Scriptural reason for their particular eschatological views whether I agree with them or not. For instance, I've heard some Christians put forth a very pathetic argument for the pre-mil position and there is nothing to respect there, yet I've heard/read David Jeremiah put forth a reasonable Scriptural argument for the pre-mil position and that I do respect. (The same applies to other views, I only point out the pre-mil example because most here are pre-mil and likely familiar with what I'm referring to)

 

Again, thank you for your contributions.

[Eric Stahl]

At the beginning of the 1000 year, kingdom age all of Israel's people will be brought back to Israel where the Gentiles will serve them gladly. The Gentiles will bring supplies to rebuild the temple and the cities of Israel on the earth. The church will be in the New Jerusalem in the sky over the hills of Israel.

 

Micah 4:1

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

 

Isaiah 14:1-2

1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

 

² And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

 

 

Isaiah 60:1-22

¹ Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

 

² For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

 

³ And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

 

⁴ Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

 

⁵ Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

 

⁶ The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.

 

⁷ All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

 

⁸ Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?

 

⁹ Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.

 

¹⁰ And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.

 

¹¹ Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.

 

¹² For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

 

¹³ The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

 

¹⁴ The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee; The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

 

¹⁵ Whereas thou has been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.

 

¹⁶ Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

 

¹⁷ For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness.

 

¹⁸ Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.

 

¹⁹ The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

 

²⁰ Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

 

²¹ Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

 

²² A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time.

[John81]

GOD IS HIS OWN INTERPRETER

 

In two ways does the great Revealer of the prophecy explain its meaning -- by words, and deeds; by written word, and acted deeds. He has given us a verbal explanation of its most central and important vision, one which stands in close and commanding connection with all its other visions and in the long course of Christian history he has 

fulfilled its predictions. Thus Scripture is the key to Scripture; and Providence to Prophecy.

 

--H. Grattan Guiness