Wow. Brother you just dismissed very clearly delineated subject in the last three chapters of the Bible! And you indicate that revelation is symbolic. Seems like you have a little faith to believe any of it. And I don't mean blind Faith but real logical understanding a scripture.
Would love to hear Steve thoughts on The Millennial Reign, spoken about in the OT of Isaiah. At least thats how I see it, for now, (Isaiah 65:20). is great one to look at
Just as an FYI, premillennialism was the position of many of the early "church fathers". You can argue that they were wrong, but from a historical standpoint, premillennialism predates amillennialism.
I'm amillennial, but I was having a conversation with a family member who is a strict premillennial regarding the church father's eschatological beliefs. What's interesting, as we were were digging through it, is that the church fathers did not have agreement on this topic. Even John's disciples didn't have an agreement; Ignatius was amillennial while Papias was premillennial. But most interestingly, most of our teachings from the first century and early second century churches are lost or only have fragments. However, Eusebius, an early father and historian, in his writings went out and gathered teachings from as many as he could to purposely provide future generations with a healthy set of early teachings. Despite having interviewed and/or gathered texts and oral teachings from a number of fathers we no longer have, Eusebius resulting belief was amillennial. As a result of this, I think his writing is very helpful. His beliefs would result in the most convincing that he received from the majority of all of the most notable teachers of the early church. Being Eusibeus came to that conclusion with far more early church history than we have, I think it is a fair argument to say amillennial was also very popular at the time of the earliest teachings and possibly the more convincing of the two. Shortly after Eusibeus' time, amillennial was the dominant view of the church up until about the 19th century, which is likely when Dispensationalism took off in popularity (which holds to a premillennial view). It was a good conversation, I was left unconvinced of premillennial though even after discussing and looking up teachings of the early church fathers. And lastly, early church fathers do not trump scripture. They were men, many of whom rdquired correction in some areas, and because their views on many topics differed, they can't be seen as a highly reliable source. Reliability requires consistency.
@aminuteforchrist thanks for the comment. I agree with you on Eusabius being amillennial. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't be so bold to claim that premillennialism predates amillennialism. Even Justin, a premillennialist, indicates that other opinions existed during his time (dialogue with trypho, ch lxxx). Exactly what those opinions were, he didn't say. That said, premillennialism is well represented in early Christianity, and arguably the predominant eschatology of the second century given the number of writings on the subject. But amillennialism was for sure the dominant view for most of Christian history until the rise of dispensationalism.
@@aminuteforchristhistorical premillennialism was the original view. Amil came along with Origen and then Augustine about 200 years later because they were influenced by secular worldview
@@christiansoldier77 Not necessarily true. Based on documents we have, likely. But amill goes all the way back to one of John's disciples, Ignatius, just like historical premil. Peter, in my opinion, has amill tendencies in his writing. Eusibeus had far more historical documentation to study than us, and he had amill. I know he was later, but when you have someone who read writings that we no longer have, and interviewed people that didn't write, it's interesting he held to amill. If it truly is the case that historical premil was the most popular, it doesn't dismiss the case that amil was also present at the time. Beyond that, early church father beliefs do not hold authority to me. They had alternating views just as we do. That shows inconsistencies between them. When Paul established churches, he had to correct them in many ways through his letters. Way back then, they weren't reliable enough. Jesus' teachings are reliable, and when we read his words, I get heavy amill vibes. Obviously, that's my interpretation. No one can say with absolute certainty they're right. Saying so would be absurd; this stuff has been debated for almost 2 millennia
@aminuteforchrist No the disciples were clearly premil and were looking forward to the return of Jesus so the earliest interpretation was premil. Amil really got its push after Augustine
Revelations 19 and 20 has its reference in Daniel chapter 7, note in verse 11-14 is the prolonged season and time the dominions of antichrist will be reigned over by the Saints. Read the whole chapter as it parallels with the book of Revelation and all the other prophets. In the Ante-Nicene Father’s writings, the Historic Millennialist position is dominate and the Amill position is clearly seen as coming from the heretical teachings of the Sadducees and Gnostics, claiming that the resurrection has already happened and is to be seen as spiritual. John’s disciples throughout the first century did battle with the Gnostic spiritualising of the resurrection.
I am always exasperated with bunny trail bible teaching. We can do nothing about millennium and rapture topics. They are going to happen in the power of God. We have no power to make any difference at all. Why not rather teach 2 Corinthians 13:5 and Romans 8:9. That we have power over.
Wow. Brother you just dismissed very clearly delineated subject in the last three chapters of the Bible! And you indicate that revelation is symbolic. Seems like you have a little faith to believe any of it. And I don't mean blind Faith but real logical understanding a scripture.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Steve Gregg. He's the Author / Editor of "Four Views on Revelation" - which is a verse by verse side by side commentary covering the 4 major schools of thought 💭 on the Revelation & Millennium. I've had my copy for 25 years & refer to it regularly. Btw, Revelation is literal & highly symbolic - it's full of "Signs & Types" that have their roots in the Old Testament - (Law & Prophets) so that to actual be Biblical we need to see Revelation through the lens of the Old Testament.
Visions in the Bible are always highly symbolic. Every single one of them. And you'll notice Revelation makes a ton of references to the OT prophets and uses their same imagery in many cases to explain something - probably because they were familiar to readers. If you get a premillennial view from it, that's all good, but it's undeniably a heavily symbolic book ,and that's okay, it is not out of character from all other visions seen in the Bible by prophets.
@aminuteforchrist yes, but that in no way means that symbolically they're not able to be interpreted literally, at least some of them. To suggest otherwise it's very close-minded to the literalness of the scripture, that God cannot fulfill prophecies. That's a slippery slope. You probably also believe that's some adultery can be excused because of the exception clause in Matthew 19. Yet you don't want to admit yet it's true that Erasmus in the 15th century actually changed one word in the Greek allowing for exceptions for divorce. Scholars have admitted this. They have researched his footnotes in the margins of his draft translations. What do you think they want to go on the record broadcasting it? The way is narrow for those who are call, few and chosen, but broad is way that leads to destruction.
The idea of a church created Utopia is more fictional than the “Left Behind” series.
"Biblical Eschatology" by Jonathan Menn is a must read. It caused me to step down off of my dispensational high horse.
May I ask why you said 'high horse'? Was it like an arrogant position or why did you say that?
Thanks Steve
Wow. Brother you just dismissed very clearly delineated subject in the last three chapters of the Bible! And you indicate that revelation is symbolic. Seems like you have a little faith to believe any of it. And I don't mean blind Faith but real logical understanding a scripture.
Amil makes the most sense
Amil is not biblically sound so it makes no sense
Would love to hear Steve thoughts on The Millennial Reign, spoken about in the OT of Isaiah. At least thats how I see it, for now, (Isaiah 65:20). is great one to look at
Steve's teaching on Isaiah 61-66: th-cam.com/video/0ImlGlxqL4k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=7Q61f7mf2wnc7evz
Just as an FYI, premillennialism was the position of many of the early "church fathers". You can argue that they were wrong, but from a historical standpoint, premillennialism predates amillennialism.
I'm amillennial, but I was having a conversation with a family member who is a strict premillennial regarding the church father's eschatological beliefs.
What's interesting, as we were were digging through it, is that the church fathers did not have agreement on this topic. Even John's disciples didn't have an agreement; Ignatius was amillennial while Papias was premillennial.
But most interestingly, most of our teachings from the first century and early second century churches are lost or only have fragments. However, Eusebius, an early father and historian, in his writings went out and gathered teachings from as many as he could to purposely provide future generations with a healthy set of early teachings.
Despite having interviewed and/or gathered texts and oral teachings from a number of fathers we no longer have, Eusebius resulting belief was amillennial.
As a result of this, I think his writing is very helpful. His beliefs would result in the most convincing that he received from the majority of all of the most notable teachers of the early church.
Being Eusibeus came to that conclusion with far more early church history than we have, I think it is a fair argument to say amillennial was also very popular at the time of the earliest teachings and possibly the more convincing of the two.
Shortly after Eusibeus' time, amillennial was the dominant view of the church up until about the 19th century, which is likely when Dispensationalism took off in popularity (which holds to a premillennial view).
It was a good conversation, I was left unconvinced of premillennial though even after discussing and looking up teachings of the early church fathers.
And lastly, early church fathers do not trump scripture. They were men, many of whom rdquired correction in some areas, and because their views on many topics differed, they can't be seen as a highly reliable source. Reliability requires consistency.
@aminuteforchrist thanks for the comment. I agree with you on Eusabius being amillennial. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't be so bold to claim that premillennialism predates amillennialism. Even Justin, a premillennialist, indicates that other opinions existed during his time (dialogue with trypho, ch lxxx). Exactly what those opinions were, he didn't say. That said, premillennialism is well represented in early Christianity, and arguably the predominant eschatology of the second century given the number of writings on the subject. But amillennialism was for sure the dominant view for most of Christian history until the rise of dispensationalism.
@@aminuteforchristhistorical premillennialism was the original view. Amil came along with Origen and then Augustine about 200 years later because they were influenced by secular worldview
@@christiansoldier77 Not necessarily true. Based on documents we have, likely. But amill goes all the way back to one of John's disciples, Ignatius, just like historical premil. Peter, in my opinion, has amill tendencies in his writing. Eusibeus had far more historical documentation to study than us, and he had amill. I know he was later, but when you have someone who read writings that we no longer have, and interviewed people that didn't write, it's interesting he held to amill. If it truly is the case that historical premil was the most popular, it doesn't dismiss the case that amil was also present at the time.
Beyond that, early church father beliefs do not hold authority to me. They had alternating views just as we do. That shows inconsistencies between them. When Paul established churches, he had to correct them in many ways through his letters. Way back then, they weren't reliable enough. Jesus' teachings are reliable, and when we read his words, I get heavy amill vibes.
Obviously, that's my interpretation. No one can say with absolute certainty they're right. Saying so would be absurd; this stuff has been debated for almost 2 millennia
@aminuteforchrist No the disciples were clearly premil and were looking forward to the return of Jesus so the earliest interpretation was premil. Amil really got its push after Augustine
👍👍👍
Anyone who thinks Revelation is just all symbolism clearly doesn't understand Revelation
Revelations 19 and 20 has its reference in Daniel chapter 7, note in verse 11-14 is the prolonged season and time the dominions of antichrist will be reigned over by the Saints. Read the whole chapter as it parallels with the book of Revelation and all the other prophets.
In the Ante-Nicene Father’s writings, the Historic Millennialist position is dominate and the Amill position is clearly seen as coming from the heretical teachings of the Sadducees and Gnostics, claiming that the resurrection has already happened and is to be seen as spiritual. John’s disciples throughout the first century did battle with the Gnostic spiritualising of the resurrection.
I am always exasperated with bunny trail bible teaching. We can do nothing about millennium and rapture topics. They are going to happen in the power of God. We have no power to make any difference at all. Why not rather teach 2 Corinthians 13:5 and Romans 8:9. That we have power over.
how about all the prophets?duh
Wow. Brother you just dismissed very clearly delineated subject in the last three chapters of the Bible! And you indicate that revelation is symbolic. Seems like you have a little faith to believe any of it. And I don't mean blind Faith but real logical understanding a scripture.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Steve Gregg.
He's the Author / Editor of "Four Views on Revelation" - which is a verse by verse side by side commentary covering the 4 major schools of thought 💭 on the Revelation & Millennium.
I've had my copy for 25 years & refer to it regularly.
Btw, Revelation is literal & highly symbolic - it's full of "Signs & Types" that have their roots in the Old Testament - (Law & Prophets) so that to actual be Biblical we need to see Revelation through the lens of the Old Testament.
Visions in the Bible are always highly symbolic. Every single one of them. And you'll notice Revelation makes a ton of references to the OT prophets and uses their same imagery in many cases to explain something - probably because they were familiar to readers.
If you get a premillennial view from it, that's all good, but it's undeniably a heavily symbolic book ,and that's okay, it is not out of character from all other visions seen in the Bible by prophets.
@aminuteforchrist yes, but that in no way means that symbolically they're not able to be interpreted literally, at least some of them. To suggest otherwise it's very close-minded to the literalness of the scripture, that God cannot fulfill prophecies. That's a slippery slope.
You probably also believe that's some adultery can be excused because of the exception clause in Matthew 19. Yet you don't want to admit yet it's true that Erasmus in the 15th century actually changed one word in the Greek allowing for exceptions for divorce. Scholars have admitted this. They have researched his footnotes in the margins of his draft translations.
What do you think they want to go on the record broadcasting it?
The way is narrow for those who are call, few and chosen, but broad is way that leads to destruction.
Uuum. Yes. Revelation is obviously symbolic. Is that not clear to you?