Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum
Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Forum |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 16) |
| Author | Comment
|
|
Truthseeker
Dec 28, 06 - 9:07 AM |
Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
Hi All- I have for a long time (my whole lifetime) had difficulty understanding the differences between amillenialism, dispensational premillenialism, postmillenialism, and standard premillenialism--and why each has its adherents. I would like to request some (succinct) explanations and the most relevant scriptural supports for each if some of our participants are able to enlighten me. I have read so many confusing and circuitous explanations that, I confess to complete frustration. Let me state that I have been most influenced throughout my adult life by the amillenial viewpoint which I am listing in summary below (without scriptural supports--because I borrowed it, and added to it, from another site) so I am not adequately prepared to defend it, but I would like some commentary on why others find it inaccurate. Thanks. As I understand it, in a nutshell, amillenialism is this: God has always had but one spiritual people. (Christians AND believing Jews) All earthly promises to natural Israel were invalidated through unbelief. (Christian believers are the offspring of Abraham—not the racial/relgious/cultural group called Jews today) Christ and his body (Jew & gentile) is true Israel. (The present nation of Israel is not any more God-ordained than France or Canada or the U.S. or any other nation-state) Redemption is in the cross and sacrifice is finished forever. (There is no separate redemption for Israel apart from Christ) Unfulfilled promises to Israel are being fulfilled in the Church. (We err if we see present-day Israel as crucial in the fulfillment of prophesy—and it may lead to faulty foreign policy) The modern restoration of Israel is co-incidental. (See above re: present-day Israel) Even if a temple gets rebuilt, it is unnecessary and irrelevant. (See above re: present-day Israel) The ‘1000 year’ reign represents the present Church. (Satan has been unable to “deceive the nations"—Christ’s church is found throughout the world and is growing) |
Ed Smith
Dec 28th, 2006 - 12:54 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
I think I've discussed this topic briefly with you on another occasion. Basically, the imposition of an allegorical interpretation on any story must be justified. It is not enough that it fits. Any number of different allegorical interpretations could also fit. Though the amillenialist interpretation can be appealing for some reasons, I have never seen any *reason* to view things that way. What about Israel and the Jews? You may think of a couple of scriptures like: For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2) And: "For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.” This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants." (Romans 9) I think that's about it for the idea you put forward, but so much of scripture speaks of Israel and it is usually hard to believe it is not really speaking of the Jews in all these places. Thus, "do not be arrogant toward the branches (Romans 11:18)", but consider the context. It is clear in Romans 9-11 that Paul often speaks of Israel as a separate entity from the Church. At the conclusion of this passage, Paul is abundantly clear and says: "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Please notice, especially, the last sentence in the above passage. I understand your concern about correct vs. faulty foreign policy. Hopefully, we who see Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy will not try to force it to be so and take God's place in bringing about the proper fulfillment at the proper time. To be fair, you should consider an error in the opposite direction. It is obvious that the replacement theology which you have described could easily bias its adherent against Israel, resulting in faulty foreign policy. Indeed, it would imply that modern day Israel is an impostor and should not exist as a nation. It would imply that it is trying to take the place of the true Israel (the Church) and would thus appear to be planted by Satan himself. Surely, such an idea could motivate one to not give Israel its fair shake in foreign policy decisions. We should probably look at objective facts (here is one list of facts: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/mideast_facts.asp) and be fair to all those involved. If you have concern about some Christians with a pro-Israel bias, then, for the record, you should understand the true reason for the bias. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a hope to soon fulfill prophecy. Polls have shown that pro-Israel Evangelicals are motivated in this direction for a different reason. Specifically, they believe that the Jews are "from the standpoint of God's choice, beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Best regards, Ed |
Mike Burke
 Dec 28th, 2006 - 11:02 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
[Quote] It is clear in Romans 9-11 that Paul often speaks of Israel as a separate entity from the Church. [unquote] Thank you Ed. It would seem God has some purpose for preserving them as a separate entity all these centuries (particularly given all the attempts to convert, assimilate, or eradicate them.) [Quote] I understand your concern about correct vs. faulty foreign policy. Hopefully, we who see Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy will not try to force it to be so and take God's place in bringing about the proper fulfillment at the proper time. To be fair, you should consider an error in the opposite direction. It is obvious that the replacement theology which you have described could easily bias its adherent against Israel, resulting in faulty foreign policy. Indeed, it would imply that modern day Israel is an impostor and should not exist as a nation. It would imply that it is trying to take the place of the true Israel (the Church) and would thus appear to be planted by Satan himself. Surely, such an idea could motivate one to not give Israel its fair shake in foreign policy decisions. [unquote] Good point. I've been amazed at how much of the western world (and perhaps much of the Church) seems willing to forget the holocaust, remaining silent when Iran hosts a conference to deny the holocaust ever happened, and even seems willing to reward terrorism (by supporting foreign policies that favor those who have used terrorism to bring attention to their cause.) I also wonder why those concerned about the environment, and in favor of nuclear non-proliferation, seem so unconcerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Do we really believe that an oil rich country, which has publicly called for the eradication of Israel, is interested in nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Does the West (so dependant on Persian Gulf oil for it's own electricity) really believe that this Persian Gulf Nation wants atomic fuel to generate electricity? God Bless. |
|
Truthseeker
Dec 29th, 2006 - 8:24 AM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
Ed and Mike— I appreciate that you are willing to take the time to answer my questions. I have, indeed, raised this issue in the past and Ed is correct, you have touched on it briefly. It is not my intent to take up a bunch of your time rehashing old material. Please don’t feel obliged to respond at length. I like short answers but I usually go on at great length myself.  Perhaps, it is my own fault, but, I have not felt I have received satisfactory explanations of the various eschatological viewpoints—in understandable concise form. I suspect I am looking for answers that are too simplistic. Maybe they do not exist. Frankly, every time I try to make sense of the various viewpoints, I find numerous defenders of each and they all have twenty-five pages of arguments to wade through. I end up bailing out because I either lack the time or the fortitude to follow all the arguments through to their conclusions. Either that or the explanations are too brief and I learn nothing. Thus, I have just never gotten a handle on them. Again, that may well be my own fault.  Is there no thumbnail explanation of these four basic views with the primary scriptures supporting each? A chart maybe? A chart would be helpful. Ed, mentioned a couple of scriptures: Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8 which support amillenialism. Having been most influenced by amill thinking, I thought I would throw out a few more with comments—probably too many: Gal. 3:29 “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” What is “Abraham’s seed” if not today’s believers? Phil. 3: 2-3 “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh---” It seems that the physical manifestation of earthly Israel is of no account. Again, with regard to fleshly signs of Israel: Gal. 6: 15-16 “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.” Here, the scripture refers to the reality of believers as “the Israel of God.” Amillenialism may require the acceptance of what could be called an “allegorical” interpretation, but it seems like a pretty clearly laid out allegory. Ed said: “It is obvious that the replacement theology which you have described could easily bias its adherent against Israel, resulting in faulty foreign policy. Indeed, it would imply that modern day Israel is an impostor and should not exist as a nation. It would imply that it is trying to take the place of the true Israel (the Church) and would thus appear to be planted by Satan himself. Surely, such an idea could motivate one to not give Israel its fair shake in foreign policy decisions.” I guess I do not see that treating Israel as we would any other sovereign nation in the world would connote that it is masquerading as true Israel or that it is “planted by Satan…”. The fact that Israel is the third leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid (mostly military aid)—of course Iraq, right now, is well ahead of Egypt and Israel—I think shows that we do not treat Israel as even-handedly as other countries. Here is a political nation of about 6.3 mil. people (including many Arabs) who receive (per capita) more military aid than any country in the world. Egypt has almost 79 mil. people. Iraq has nearly 27 mil. people. Not counting the massive flow of money going to Iraq, oddly, Russia would be the number three recipient of U.S. aid. A bit ironic considering our historical adversarial relationship with them? Ed: “I think that's [two scriptures quoted]about it for the idea you put forward, but so much of scripture speaks of Israel and it is usually hard to believe it is not really speaking of the Jews in all these places. Thus, "do not be arrogant toward the branches" (Romans 11:1  , but consider the context. It is clear in Romans 9-11 that Paul often speaks of Israel as a separate entity from the Church. At the conclusion of this passage, Paul is abundantly clear and says:"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Within this same part of Paul’s writing (Romans 9-11) we see: Rom. 9:30-32 “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’” Does this verse not make it quite clear that the Gentiles have replaced Israel (which lacked faith) as a result of the faith the Gentiles have received? If there is a future for Israel as a “nation,” is it not through faith in Christ? Indeed, believers are even called “a nation.” 1 Peter 2:9-10 “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” What clearer statement can be made for so-called “replacement theology?” Ed quoted a study: “Evangelicals are motivated in this direction for a different reason. Specifically, they believe that the Jews are "from the standpoint of God's choice, beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." My answer would be that it is the fundamentalist evangelical branch of American religious leaders who constantly make this assumption—ie. Israel is special and what God said in the OT still applies. Mike’s statements: “I've been amazed at how much of the western world (and perhaps much of the Church) seems willing to forget the holocaust, remaining silent when Iran hosts a conference to deny the holocaust ever happened, and even seems willing to reward terrorism (by supporting foreign policies that favor those who have used terrorism to bring attention to their cause.)” ”I also wonder why those concerned about the environment, and in favor of nuclear non-proliferation, seem so unconcerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons.” “Do we really believe that an oil rich country, which has publicly called for the eradication of Israel, is interested in nuclear energy for peaceful purposes?” “Does the West (so dependant on Persian Gulf oil for it's own electricity) really believe that this Persian Gulf Nation wants atomic fuel to generate electricity?” Please do not misunderstand me. I absolutely do not condone acts of terrorism and I certainly do not discount the tragedy of the holocaust—I am not a supporter of Iran or Muslim fanatics who hate Israel. Israel may indeed have some special significance in biblical prophesy. That’s part of the reason I would like to hear the arguments. If I may play “devil’s advocate” for a moment—I wonder what we would think if placed in the position of Iran. The greatest military power on earth (U.S.) has invaded a neighboring nation (Iraq) with whom Iran has had a lengthy history (both recently and from ancient times) of conflict—during the most recent conflict(1980-8 the U.S. supplied military assistance to Sadaam. The U.S. has now installed (arguably, but, at least, supported) an unpopular government which can not seem to govern and is highly unstable. This same U.S. government has called Iran one corner of an “axis of evil” and indicated that it does not harbor any reservations about using military muscle to extend its policies and maintain its perceived self-interest. One of its closest friends is Iran’s avowed enemy (Israel). Israel has nuclear weapons, it is fairly well established—although the Israeli government does not openly admit it. This U.S. administration has quite consistently said that a nuclear weapons program for Iran is unacceptable. It’s okay for Pakistan, Israel, India, Russia, China—all nearby and potential foes of Iran…but not okay for Iran.Look, I know Iran’s leader is a nut-case (along with North Korea’s leader) regarding nuclcear weapons, but why don’t we, at least try to play even-handedly with all nations? Iran offered about a month or two ago to sit down and discuss with the U.S. its program but the Bush administration labeled it “nothing new” and rejected it out-of-hand. It was not my intent to argue foreign policy, but I think we can see how this eschatological thing can affect our world view and, for that reason, ought to be understood. And I don’t…. Thanks for any help you or any others may render. |
|
Mike Burke
Dec 29th, 2006 - 9:43 AM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
[Quote] Within this same part of Paul’s writing (Romans 9-11) we see: Rom. 9:30-32 “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’” Does this verse not make it quite clear that the Gentiles have replaced Israel (which lacked faith) as a result of the faith the Gentiles have received? [unquote] And what is made clear by the following verse? From the standpoint of the gospel they (hardened, fleshly Israel) are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 11:28-29.) And what was fleshly Israel's calling? And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Ex. 19:6.) They never truly fulfilled that calling, and as Paul said "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Premillennialists believe that they will fulfill this calling (under Christ and the risen saints) during the millennium. Again, from the 11th chapter of Romans: Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:18-22, 25.) [Quote] Is there no thumbnail explanation of these four basic views [unquote] Jim Ober gave a thumbnail explaination of the three BASIC millennial views, in an article that appears on my web site: Amill is the traditional view of the church. I grew up Lutheran and therefore amill. Most Catholics are amill. Amill holds that the church is the only elect institution, with the purpose of bringing the world to Jesus per the great commission. Amill sees the first resurrection as spiritual (conversion, getting saved, etc) and the second resurrection as general, a point in time, when the dead are reanimated, and together with the living are judged for all eternity. To the amills the meaning of 1Th 4:13-18 is not that important because somewhere in that resurrection process all of humanity living and dead are brought together for judgement. Some amills see the last rebellion of Rev 20:7 as yet future and see the final resurrection as yet future. But all other prophecy is complete or points to Jesus and\or the Church in a highly symbolic way. The Roman Catholics for example see Mary in Rev 12. Post millennialism holds roughly the same view as the amills but believes that a literal fulfilment of a millennial age has to come before Jesus' final return. Post mills see the great commission of Mat 28:20 as a promise that the church will successfully evangelize the whole world, and most people will become christians. Premilennialism says that there are 2 times yet in front of us, the time of the antichrist of 2Thess 2 and other texts when he devastates all things (as Irenaeus put it) followed by the time of the millennium. http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com/RaptureAndPremillennialism.html [Quote] ...with the primary scriptures supporting each? [unquote] You seem aware of the primary scriptures used to support Amillennialism, and Ed and I have given you some of the primary scriptures used to support premillennialism. Here's another one: So says Jehovah, who gives the sun for a light by day, the laws of the moon, and the stars for a light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar, Jehovah of Hosts is His name. If these ordinances depart from before Me, says Jehovah, the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever. So says Jehovah, If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be searched out, I will also reject all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, declares Jehovah. (Jer. 31:35-37.) |
|
Ed Smith
Dec 29th, 2006 - 1:09 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
TS: Is there no thumbnail explanation of these four basic views with the primary scriptures supporting each? A chart maybe? A chart would be helpful. You could probably find such a chart as well as I could, but if you really want to decide more definitely, I think you’ll just have to bite the bullet and wade through those lengthy explanations you mentioned. I don’t know much more of amillenialism than the idea that the 1000 year reign is taken as the church age. I don’t know what they do with the seven seals and Jesus returning on the white horse BEFORE the millenium. By the way, I didn’t mean to say that I think the amillenial explanation fits, just that it must do more than fit. The various cults have all sorts of allegoricized and spiritualized explanations of many Christian truths and many of them appear to fit well enough; there is just no reason to take their particular explanation. The default position for all literature is that it be taken literally unless there is some clear reason to think otherwise. TS: Ed, mentioned a couple of scriptures: Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8 which support amillenialism. I wouldn’t say they even appear to support amillenialism, but only a certain small aspect which you mentioned. You are right, there are other scriptures which can be misconstrued in such a direction, though it is more difficult, in my view, to do so. I thought it clear that Galatians would have no bearing on replacement theology, but rather dealt with what is necessary for salvation and what is not important for Gentile believers to observe in the Jewish law. At issue was not whether there was any value in being Jewish, but whether the Gentiles should actually be physically circumcised. Sometimes, the “circumcision” is used to refer to the Jews, but here it certainly seems to refer to circumcision. TS: It seems that the physical manifestation of earthly Israel is of no account. That certainly is not implied in any way. Furthermore, that could not be so by Romans 11:28-29 which we have mentioned and Romans 3:1-2, which I don’t think we have just yet. TS: Amillenialism may require the acceptance of what could be called an “allegorical” interpretation, but it seems like a pretty clearly laid out allegory. As I said, that should not be enough to support an allegorical interpretation. There must be some reason to believe that one was intended. I could give you well laid out allegories for the story of Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension (some cults have done just that). However, there is no justification to take that story as an allegory rather than a historical account. People only do so because they’d prefer something different. TS: I guess I do not see that treating Israel as we would any other sovereign nation in the world would connote that it is masquerading as true Israel or that it is “planted by Satan…”. The fact that Israel is the third leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid (mostly military aid)—of course Iraq, right now, is well ahead of Egypt and Israel—I think shows that we do not treat Israel as even-handedly as other countries. Here is a political nation of about 6.3 mil. people (including many Arabs) who receive (per capita) more military aid than any country in the world. Egypt has almost 79 mil. people. Iraq has nearly 27 mil. people. Not counting the massive flow of money going to Iraq, oddly, Russia would be the number three recipient of U.S. aid. A bit ironic considering our historical adversarial relationship with them? We probably have enough to discuss without foreign policy debates. The reasons for foreign aid allotments are complex and often counterintuitive to the man on the street. Do you think there is some Christian theology behind our exceptionally high aid to Israel? Then why has Egypt been near Israel in aid allotment and far above all countries below it (excepting a recent year or two in Iraq)? Looking at foreign aid, it seems clear that Egypt and Israel are two special nations among many. Most of the aid to Israel is military as well as that to Egypt. Here’s one idea on Israel: they are our ally and run a relatively free, modern democracy. The real question is why do we give so much to Egypt? Anti-American hatred is great in Egypt and anti-American propaganda is plentiful in the government run press. There are practical reasons for this policy, though it's efficacy is debatable. Otherwise, it seems you may have missed my point. You feel that certain pro-Israel theologies may lead to a bias in foreign policy. I don’t think it has to and I see no evidence that it has. A theology that says the nation of Israel was wiped out forever and replaced with the church could also bias foreign policy against Israel. Indeed, anti-semitic, anti-Zionist groups often hold that theological position as prominent. The fact that God has a special purpose and special favor for the descendants of Jacob, doesn’t at all imply we should look the other way if they misbehave. In fact, we should be more motivated to encourage them to live up to their special calling in every way they can. So, neither theological view would force anyone to treat Israel in an unfair manner, but my point was that replacement theology could lead to such bias just as easily, if not more so. TS: Within this same part of Paul’s writing (Romans 9-11) we see: Rom. 9:30-32 “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’”....... What clearer statement can be made for so-called “replacement theology?” At this point, I think we may have been using that term differently and that is encouraging. Of course, all Christians believe that the current torch bearers of the ancient Hebrew faith are those who believe in Christ. As I understand the term “replacement theology” it goes much further to say that Israel has no special place before God. The conclusion of chapter 11 obviously rules that out. They are “enemies for our sake” but “beloved for the sake of the fathers.” TS: My answer would be that it is the fundamentalist evangelical branch of American religious leaders who constantly make this assumption—ie. Israel is special and what God said in the OT still applies. Yes, I also am saying Israel is special. You, undoubtedly, believe that much of what is said in the OT still applies, evangelicals clearly do not believe we should live according to all the Jewish law, so I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. You seem to have a concern that pre-millennial evangelicals are setting foreign policy, giving Israel a place it shouldn’t have with us. However, I think presidents are most responsible for foreign policy. The only presidents in my lifetime which could possibly be considered in the evangelical branch are Carter and Clinton. People generally didn’t have this worry about either of those two because people were satisfied that Clinton was completely insincere in his faith and Carter never seemed to care much for Israel, to put it mildly. The Bushes are Episcopalians. I don’t know what kind of eschatology is popular with that church, though I attended one for a few years. I think that says a lot. Their eschatology is not in the forefront, whatever it may be. Why do we support Israel? Try that link I gave you in my first post. Hal Lindsey is not president and never has been. TS: It’s okay for Pakistan, Israel, India, Russia, China—all nearby and potential foes of Iran…but not okay for Iran. No, I don’t think it was ever okay with the USA’s leaders, and we didn’t want those folks to get the bomb. For some reason, it seems that once they have it, we give up on them going back. Yes, it does seem unfair that some countries are expected to keep their nukes and others are criticized and punished for trying to get them. However, I don’t have a better idea than the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which nations like Iran signed. Should we scrap it and let everyone get nukes? The hope was to keep it as long as possible from getting to all nations. It was hoped that it might not be so bad for the more responsible nations to have it. By “responsible” I don’t mean much--just that “mutual assured destruction” means something to them. There are indications, even clear statements to the effect, that the threat of nuclear retaliation doesn’t mean much to Iran’s leaders. That could be trouble. TS: Iran offered about a month or two ago to sit down and discuss with the U.S. its program but the Bush administration labeled it “nothing new” and rejected it out-of-hand. I felt it was clear enough that was a delay tactic. They only need a bit more time to get that bomb. Playing at negotiation could give them that time. Mahmoud said he wouldn’t budge on their right to nuclear technology. Anyway, I’ve spent enough time on this today. I propose we leave foreign policy and get back to the eschatological questions. Ed |
|
Mike Burke
Dec 30th, 2006 - 5:42 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
TS: It’s okay for Pakistan, Israel, India, Russia, China—all nearby and potential foes of Iran…but not okay for Iran. Ed: No, I don’t think it was ever okay with the USA’s leaders, and we didn’t want those folks to get the bomb. For some reason, it seems that once they have it, we give up on them going back. Yes, it does seem unfair that some countries are expected to keep their nukes and others are criticized and punished for trying to get them. However, I don’t have a better idea than the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which nations like Iran signed. Should we scrap it and let everyone get nukes? The hope was to keep it as long as possible from getting to all nations. It was hoped that it might not be so bad for the more responsible nations to have it. By “responsible” I don’t mean much--just that “mutual assured destruction” means something to them. There are indications, even clear statements to the effect, that the threat of nuclear retaliation doesn’t mean much to Iran’s leaders. That could be trouble. Given a choice, I would rather not see Israel or Iran with the bomb. In fact, I would rather the United States, Russia, and China not have it. Did anyone here mean to suggest that we somehow take it away from Israel, India, and Pakistan? How about Russia and China? No? Then shouldn't we at least make sure that no more nations develop nuclear weapons (and with time, advanced delivery systems)? If the U.N. is to serve any useful purpose in the post cold war era, shouldn't nuclear non-proliferation be it's number one priority? (After all, the chance of nuclear war starting by accident increases exponentially with every nation that has advanced nuclear weaponry.) In my opinion, the fact that the world community lacks this responsibility is one reason that we will need the literal return of Christ to bring about the millennium. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved (Matt. 24:22.) BTW: I believe that Israel already has the bomb (and will use it rather than face another holocaust), how does Iran possessing such a weapon make the middle east safer? Is the world community (and the American left) motivated by a genuine concern for human life here, or an anti-Israeli bias? To TS: Unlike the president of Iran, you acknowledge that there was a mid twentieth century holocaust of European Jews (who had no homeland of their own at the time.) Nonetheless, I take it you believe that the U.N.'s 1948 creation of the State of Israel was a mistake (or at least an overreaction)? Given that Israel was immediately and repeatedly attacked by all it's neighbors, and has now given back land that it won defending itself, does it now have the right to exist? Does it now have the right to defend itself? What's to be done if the idea of a Palestinian state, co-existing with the state of Israel, has no real appeal to the Palestinians (who's elected government is controlled by Hamas--a militant organization that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist--and who have used this land to launch missiles at Israeli civilians)? You suggest our long standing support of Israel is a flawed foreign policy, perhaps the President should consider the following proposals: 1.) Withdraw military support from Israel. 2.) Pressure Israel to sit on it's hands while it's civilians are killed by terrorists from the West Bank. 3.) Let the Iranian dictator have the bomb (your earlier point was that it's only fair, given the fact that other countries have it, right?) 4.) As far as possible, force Israel to continue trading land for the illusion of peace (silently suffering regular suicide bombings on it's streets and busses, and the occasional machine gun attack in it's restaurants and public cafes.) 5.) Pull out of Iraq, and let Shiites and Sunnies do whatever they're gonna do. 6.) Let the rest of the world (and particularly the Middle East) go to hell, and hope that the terrorists will reciprocate by leaving us alone. I realize no one is suggesting what I have in so many words, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that we allow Saigon to fall to the North Vietnamese either--and in all honesty, aren't these the only "political solutions" the administration's critics have to offer? Could it even be that some secretly hope that Iran will come to the rescue, and provide "the final solution”? (We'd all like the whole thing to just go away--and on some level, perhaps some of us would like to see Israel go away too.) |
|
Ed Smith
Jan 1st, 2007 - 12:54 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
I agree with what I guess is the real implication in your post, Mike. That is, the real question is whether we agree with Israel's existence. It is dangerous living in Israel today. With their rather tenuous grasp on existence, what would happen if we withdrew our support? They are rather short on other supporters, but long on vicious enemies. Let's use that as a jumping off point for prophecy about Israel. Surely, some scripture that should get attention from Christians is Zechariah 12:9-10 "And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." John 19:37 makes reference to this verse in which he identifies "Me" (YHWH) with Jesus, and the piercing with the crucifixion. The implication seems to be that Jesus will rescue Israel from other nations at their darkest hour. Then they will recognize Him as the One they rejected and see all that they lost over the last two millenia (or more). Then they will mourn, and understandably so. I will add that it seems chapter 14 is still speaking of the same event: "For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!" I imagine Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives after it has been split and supervising the passing through of the exiles from Jerusalem. As they pass by, they see Jesus, their Messiah, and they see the scars. Then they begin to weep. Ed |
|
Mike Burke
Jan 1st, 2007 - 7:32 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
[Quote] I agree with what I guess is the real implication in your post, Mike. That is, the real question is whether we agree with Israel's existence. [unquote] Thank you Ed. That was exactly my point. It seems obvious to me that those who criticize our support of Israel are suggesting that we withdraw it, and it seems equally obvious to me that the withdrawal of American support would not only cost human lives, but would amount to the betrayal of a loyal ally. While we've surely been targetted for Islamic terrorism because of our support of Israel, I believe that to respond in this way would be both cowardly, and without honor (and I don't believe that God would smile on our nation for taking such a path.) [Quote] Surely, some scripture that should get attention from Christians is Zechariah 12:9-10 "And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." John 19:37 makes reference to this verse in which he identifies "Me" (YHWH) with Jesus, and the piercing with the crucifixion. The implication seems to be that Jesus will rescue Israel from other nations at their darkest hour. Then they will recognize Him as the One they rejected and see all that they lost over the last two millenia (or more). Then they will mourn, and understandably so. I will add that it seems chapter 14 is still speaking of the same event [unquote] Very good points Ed (particularly the New Testament interpretation of Zech. 12:10 found in John 19:37.) None of this would make any sense if "Jerusalem" is taken to mean "the Church" in these passages, and I thank you for bringing them to our attention. God Bless. |
|
Truthseeker
Jan 2nd, 2007 - 1:14 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
Ed and Mike— Thanks for your (always) thoughtful responses. I believe Ed is correct in saying that I will have to take the time and effort to figure it out for myself. The nice concise explanation I would like apparently does not exist. Obviously, you do not share the interest and concern I have regarding this issue. If this was a “foreign policy” debate, I would agree with Ed that this site may not be the place for it. I feel, however, that the issue is not exactly about foreign policy--at least from my perspective. Eschatology, IMO, has an effect on how this country conducts foreign policy. I will explain below. I have tried to defend an amill viewpoint in previous posts, not because I am “sold” on it--far from it, the premill view may have great merit, but I am bothered by the fear that if it is not correct, we are judging decisions based on false premises. So, if I may, I will try to pose the Arab viewpoint—although I do not support their actions (nor do I support whole-heartedly the Israeli government’s actions, either). I will not belabor this issue after today. I just happen to think it is more important than we may think initially. The Jewish World Review website Ed mentioned seems quite accurate in its list of events since Israel declared its independence. However, it is lacking in a complete explanation of how that came about. I list this for readers who may not know the background. The foundation for the creation of Israel goes back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which the British government stated its support for Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, with the condition that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” Following WWI, the Bristish held a League of Nations mandate over the land of Palestine. Of course, Arabs formed the vast majority of the population of Palestine at that time and had for hundreds of years. Most Jews lived in other countries around the world especially in Europe (where millions died under the Nazis). Notice, the Balfour Declaration did not call for a “Jewish state” comprised OF the land of Palestine—rather a homeland for the Jews IN the land of Palestine. The settlement of Jewish refugees there would require the removal of thousands of Arab Palestinians. To this day, Arabs argue that they were forced from their lands and a “Jewish State” was imposed on them with no better than second class citizenship for Muslim Arabs. Following the Holocaust, after World War II, Jews began to go to Palestine, even before the U.N. took any action to make the original proposal a reality. While some land was obtained illegally, most was purchased, often, however, from absentee landlords, resulting in poor peasants who lived on the land being evicted. By 1947, Jews owned only about 6% of the land. When the U.N. got around to creating a Partition Plan, the land was divided 55% to 45% in favor of the Jewish settlers, although they made up only 33% of the population. The Arabs rejected this partition plan. They also rejected the creation of a “Jewish” state. Many Arabs, at that time would have supported a multi-ethnic non-sectarian political entity, but this was not a choice given them. (http://www.zmag.org/shalom-meqa.htm) Fighting broke out between Arabs and Jews. Terrorist activities were undertaken by both sides. Moshe Dayan and other Israeli leaders, famously, admitted a number of years ago, I believe, that they took part in what amounted to terrorist activities during Israel’s early struggle for independence. When Israel declared her independence in 1948, several Arab neighbors tried to prevent this through military force. Eventually, Israel prevailed as it has in several other military actions in 1956, 1967, and 1973 against Arab neighbors and paramilitary organizations such as the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others, thanks in large part to western military aid. Needless to say, there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks against Israel and retaliatory attacks by Israel against the Arab resistance. Palestinian Arabs and their supporters consider the existence of Israel to be an illegal occupation and the partition of Palestine to be contrary to the interests of Palestinian Arabs and the original UN intent. Ed said: "Do you think there is some Christian theology behind our exceptionally high aid to Israel?" Well, I guess my answer is that I am suspicious that there is. According to a 2006 national survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 78% of Americans consider the Bible to be the Word of God—not all take it literally, however. The numbers who take it as literally true in the South are significantly higher than elsewhere. Christians by nearly 5 to 1 tend to sympathize with the cause of Israel as opposed to that of the Palestinians. The survey indicates “…a large majority (63%), of those who believe Israel was given by God to the Jewish people say they sympathize more with Israel, as do a majority (60%) of those who see Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The survey found “…beliefs about the Bible are closely related to views about the state of Israel. Large majorities of those who view the Bible as the literal word of God say that Israel was given by God to the Jews and that Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy (70% and 62%, respectively).” “Christians… differ over the circumstances surrounding the second coming. About a third (34%) say that this will occur after the world situation worsens and reaches a low point, a view often referred to pre-millennialism. But 37% say that it is impossible to know the circumstances that will precede Christ's return to earth. Very few (4%) say that Christ will return after the world situation improves and reaches a high point. Despite the prominence in evangelical circles of pre-millennialist views concerning the rapture, white evangelicals are divided over the circumstances that will precede Christ's return. Among white evangelicals, half (48%) express a pre-millennialist view, while nearly as many (40%) say that it is impossible to know the circumstances that will precede Christ's return.” So, if you believe evangelical Christians have no influence on U.S. policies toward Israel then these statistics don’t matter. A passing knowledge of recent electoral history would suggest otherwise. The best-selling status of the Left Behind series of books by LaHaye and Jenkins leaves many not-so-knowledgeable Christians with the idea that their fanciful novels are based on biblical fact--so-called facts many pre-mill dispensationalists don’t even agree with. Secular media, notably the History Channel, frequently air various end-times focused programs which may inform or misinform the public on what “the Bible says.” I recently saw an interview on Good Morning America, in which LaHaye and Jenkins were asked about their books, movies, etc.—the last book to appear in March 2007. In the presentation it was clear that their stories were “biblical” and “based on the Word of God.” I conclude from this that a significantly large segment of the American public has a very pro-Israel view point because of their religious beliefs. In a democratic society we believe public pressure sooner or later comes to bear on elected officials—whether or not the officials themselves have notable religious beliefs. To suggest that what people believe is unimportant because we may not see an immediate connection to U.S. foreign policy is, I think, short-sighted. Is a peaceful settlement possible in Israel? Many evangelical Christians say this can not happen because the prophetic scenario they envision unfolding in the Middle East is part of a divine plan for this geographic area. Yet, one of these avowed enemies of Israel (Egypt) has remained at peace with Israel since the 1978 Camp David Accords—partly thanks to massive U.S. aid. Mike said, regarding countries who have built nuclear weapons: “I don’t think it was ever okay with the USA’s leaders, and we didn’t want those folks to get the bomb.” Okay, but did we threaten military action to prevent any of them from doing so? It matters who is getting the bomb, not that others are getting it. I find a certain inconsistency there. Mike said one possible (I assume, unacceptable) solution would be: “Let the rest of the world (and particularly the Middle East) go to hell.” That seemed a poor choice of words, especially from a universalist. :-) Ed said: “The only presidents in my lifetime which could possibly be considered in the evangelical branch are Carter and Clinton.” What about our present President? He describes himself as a born-again Christian—now a Methodist. Billy Graham acted as Reagan’s, sort of, personal chaplain and Reagan was, supposedly, an evangelical. I don’t know how you define “evangelical,” but it seems to me there have been a number of recent presidents who could fit the bill. Ed said: “Yes, I also am saying Israel is special. You, undoubtedly, believe that much of what is said in the OT still applies, evangelicals clearly do not believe we should live according to all the Jewish law, so I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.” Please explain to me how you identify “ Israel” as, you believe they have some special place in biblical. Are all those who consider themselves to be Jews counted as receiving some special role in God’s plan? Barbara Streisand is “Jewish;” Sammy Davis Jr. was “Jewish;” there is reason to believe that Adolf Hitler may have been one-quarter "Jewish." Are these some of the people (“Israel”) who you believe have a special role in biblical prophesy? Would you say “from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (?)"—or is it just the nation-state of Israel that has significance? Ed said, in regard to Iran: “There are indications, even clear statements to the effect, that the threat of nuclear retaliation doesn’t mean much to Iran’s leaders. That could be trouble.” This is precisely the argument which used to be advanced for refusing relations with Red China. Suddenly, it became okay to deal with those rotten commies and now most of my Christmas presents come from there and American jobs are being lost to China. Kinda odd? I find it perplexing that amillenialism is considered “allegorical” but many premills believe that the dream visions of John should be taken as literal. So much for this issue, from me. God bless you in the New Year! |
|
Mike Burke
Jan 3rd, 2007 - 3:25 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
[Quote] Mike said, regarding countries who have built nuclear weapons: “I don’t think it was ever okay with the USA’s leaders, and we didn’t want those folks to get the bomb.” [unquote] I didn't say that, Ed did. I asked whether anyone here meant to suggest that we should attempt to take the bomb away from Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, or China? Did you mean to suggest that, or are you willing to admit that that would be an impossibility? Does that impossibility justify the criminal negligence of allowing a nation like Iran to develop the bomb? Even if it were not for the nature of the regimes in Iran and North Korea, I believe it would be criminally negligent to allow the nuclear club to keep growing. As I said, the threat of nuclear war increases exponentially with each nation that develops advanced nuclear weaponry. [Quote] I have tried to defend an amill viewpoint in previous posts, not because I am “sold” on it--far from it, the premill view may have great merit, but I am bothered by the fear that if it is not correct, we are judging decisions based on false premises. [unquote] I find it strangely inconsistent that you are not troubled by the false premises Ahmadinejad may base his decisions on, after he has the bomb. He has expressed very strong eschatological views you know. I also find it strange that you have no fear of basing decisions on false premises, should a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy turn out to be true. Assuming for the moment that it is, couldn't appeasement, globalization, and political correctness pave the way for the anti-Christ? [Quote] If this was a “foreign policy” debate, I would agree with Ed that this site may not be the place for it. [unquote] If you don't feel this site is the place for a foreign policy debate, and you have such a genuine interest in the Biblical issues, I'm surprised you didn't address the following point Ed made: [Quote] Surely, some scripture that should get attention from Christians is Zechariah 12:9-10 "And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." John 19:37 makes reference to this verse in which he identifies "Me" (YHWH) with Jesus, and the piercing with the crucifixion. The implication seems to be that Jesus will rescue Israel from other nations at their darkest hour. Then they will recognize Him as the One they rejected...[unquote] It was fleshly Israel that rejected Christ at His first coming, and it's fleshly Israel that will be delivered from other nations at his second. [Quote] I find it perplexing that amillenialism is considered “allegorical” but many premills believe that the dream visions of John should be taken as literal. [unquote] Dream visions? John does not say he had a dream. He says he talked to the risen Christ, and an angel, and was shown things in visions. How much of what was shown is symbolic may be debatable, but he was not SHOWN the saints reigning a thousand years. A thousand years cannot be visualized. He was TOLD that the risen saints would reign with Christ a thousand years. [Quote] Large majorities of those who view the Bible as the literal word of God say that Israel was given by God to the Jews and that Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy [unquote] Perhaps that's because that's what the Bible says. Ed and I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. You seem more concerned with being "politically correct." [Quote] Following the Holocaust, after World War II, Jews began to go to Palestine, even before the U.N. took any action to make the original proposal a reality. [unquote] The point is that it did make the proposal a reality, and you seem to believe it was a mistake. Even if it were, what's to be done about it now? Once again I ask: Given that Israel was immediately and repeatedly attacked by all it's neighbors, and has now given back land that it won defending itself, does it now have the right to exist? Does it now have the right to defend itself? What's to be done if the idea of a Palestinian state, co-existing with the state of Israel, has no real appeal to the Palestinians (who's elected government is controlled by Hamas--a militant organization that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist--and who have used this land to launch missiles at Israeli civilians)? Do you suggest the following? 1.) Withdrawing military support from Israel. 2.) Pressuring Israel to sit on it's hands while it's citizens are killed by terrorists from the West Bank. 3.) Letting the Iranian dictator have the bomb (because it's only fair, given that other countries have it--which is what you seem to be saying.) 4.) Attempting to force Israel to continue trading land for the illusion of peace (silently suffering regular suicide bombings on it's streets and busses, and the occasional machine gun attack in it's restaurants and public cafes.) 5.) Pulling out of Iraq, and letting the Shiites and Sunnies do whatever they're gonna do there. 6.) Letting the rest of the world go to hell (especially the middle east, and most especially Israel), in the hope that the terrorists will then by leave us alone. [BTW: I do not apologize for the choice of words, as there is a sense in which I believe in hell, and I'm using the word figuratively.] In short, what practical suggestions do you have? [Quote] Palestinian Arabs and their supporters consider the existence of Israel to be an illegal occupation [unquote] But the fact remains that Israel is the only nation to have been created by an act of the United Nations. It was created by the conscience of the world community in the wake of the holocaust, and if that inconvenienced the Arab population (which has never known the suffering the Jews did under Hitler), it does not justify them in resorting to acts of terrorism to change that reality. If they succeed in doing that, the U.N. means nothing. International law means nothing. And any nation (including the United States) is justified in using any means at it's disposal to achieve it's political ends. [Quote] Ed said, in regard to Iran: “There are indications, even clear statements to the effect, that the threat of nuclear retaliation doesn’t mean much to Iran’s leaders. That could be trouble.” This is precisely the argument which used to be advanced for refusing relations with Red China. [unquote] Not really. Even when the red Chinese were at their reddest, they were materialists. They had no eschatology, and no hope of reward in any afterlife. They were idealogically quite different from the Japanese kamikazes, and modern Islamo-fascists. Note: The only "terrorist" act I recall an Israeli leader admitting to was the bombing of the King David Hotel, which I believe was used to house British military personnel at the time (and was therefore considered a military target.) That is very different from bombing school busses. Some would call George Washington and the Continental army "terrorists." I disagree. You might think I have some "American bias" here, but I'm also an Irish American, and I have no trouble in recognizing the IRA as terrorists--even though my father grew up believing they were heroes. Even he recognized them for what they were when they started bombing churches and school buses (and I'm quite proud of him for refusing to contribute to their "cause" when asked.) |
|
Ed Smith
Jan 3rd, 2007 - 4:14 PM |
Re: Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
TS: So, if I may, I will try to pose the Arab viewpoint—although I do not support their actions (nor do I support whole-heartedly the Israeli government’s actions, either). If you really want to pose the Arab viewpoint, you should consider what it really is, not just some of their more understandable arguments. The viewpoint of their leaders is that they need to blame problems on some outside entity; the Jews and Israel are convenient. This is all the more easy to do since they control the press and since Muslims are inclined to anti-Semitism due to the writings of Muhammed and his early successors. The view of the Arabic people is that Jews are pigs and apes in human form, that they use the blood of Arabs in their religious rites, etc. Your argument (or that which you attribute to the Arabs) seems to be focused on how the modern nation of Israel was founded. Thus the argument seems to be that Israel was illegitimately founded and has no right to exist. The reasons you gave include some of which I cannot confirm or deny. In any event, you mentioned before that they should be treated like other nations. How many modern nations were formed without harm to many of those occupying the land and holding power prior to that time? Very few indeed, but somehow we never seem to hear the suggestion that other nations be dissolved for that reason as we so often do with Israel. Why? To quote Dennis Prager: “Take Pakistan, for example. Unlike the Jewish state of Israel, which had existed twice before in history, there was never a country called Pakistan, nor was there ever any other independent Muslim country in the part of India that was carved out to create Pakistan. Moreover, if the Jewish state of Israel is illegitimate because it created 700,000 Arab refugees, why isn't the Muslim state of Pakistan, which created more than eight million Hindu refugees, illegitimate? The answer is obvious. When people isolate the one Jewish state in the world for sanctions, opprobrium and delegitimizing, they are doing so because it is the Jewish state. And that, quite simply, is why anti-Zionism is simply another form of Jew-hatred. You can criticize Israel all you want. That does not make you an anti-Semite. But if you are an anti-Zionist or advocate the destruction of the Jewish state, then let's be clear: You are an enemy of the Jews and of Judaism, and the word for such a person is "anti-Semite." Moreover, I will add that there was much redefining of nations and their boundaries after each of the world wars. No other such carving out of nations and their boundaries is widely criticized as illegitimate. Israel is special. Again I ask, why? I can think of no reason for this or for anti-Semitism in general other than the idea that Satan is holding a hard grudge against the nation which brought forth the Christ and finally ruined his plans forever. Now, do not get the wrong impression, I, like Dennis Prager above, feel it is fine and sometimes appropriate to criticize Israel as well as individual Jews who are misbehaving. But I can’t see anything other than a supernatural explanation for Jew hatred and hatred of Israel. Overall, the Jews have been a peaceful people who have contributed much to science, medicine, entertainment, and economics. What more could one ask of a race? And yet the ancient hatred burns ever hot. TS: Ed said: "Do you think there is some Christian theology behind our exceptionally high aid to Israel?" Well, I guess my answer is that I am suspicious that there is. You may be suspicious, but I don’t see it and I again maintain that there is at least as much danger of and evidence for error in the opposite direction. If the statistics suggest that premillenialism affects foreign policy (which they don’t) then an alternative to premill. would also necessarily have the opposite affect. Which is more likely to result in unfairness? I say the theology that Israel is an impostor trying to take the church’s rightful place is more likely to create unfairness, simply because of its negativity, whether right or wrong. I think that when one considers the Jews or Israel beloved of God, one may be motivated (as I said before) to set them straight when they are wrong and make them the best they can be, for their own good. Regardless of statistics cited there is no indication that this affects our foreign policy. I haven’t actually heard this given previously as a major concern. Far more often it is asserted that the many Jews in the US (more than live in Israel) have too much influence on policy. Those Jews are not at all fans of the popular eschatology associated with evangelicals today. The last I heard the Bushes were still Episcopalians, but perhaps you have more current information. The Methodist denomination does not at all fit neatly into evangelical circles. It’s leadership is notoriously liberal, though many individual churches, particularly in the southeast, are otherwise. The only major denomination which is considered truly evangelical is the Southern Baptist Church (Clinton and Carter). Incidentally, I read a little story a while back about what B. Clinton said while speaking to a group of zionist Jews. “The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die.” Just Google a few of those words for verification of this quote. Yet you seem more worried about Republicans. Why? Are you a Democrat or do you just put no more stock in that statement than I put in his promise to a group of New York Jews to keep a kosher kitchen in the White House back when he was first running for president? As for Reagan, I’m not sure of his denomination, but I distinctly remember him saying publicly that his traditions did not use the term “born again.” As for Billy Graham, he has long advised presidents of both political parties, even bad boy Clinton. Furthermore, he’s never been one to focus more than peripherally on eschatological matters or the Jews and didn’t we hear something a few years ago about some conversation with Nixon in which he betrayed at least some mild frustration with the Jews? Anyway, you may think you see it, but I certainly don’t even see that Christian love for the Jews is setting policy with Israel, much less Christian eschatology. Do you have any reference for the claim that W. Bush describes himself as a born-again Christian or is this just an assumption you are making? Not that it is damning if he does so. In fact, I feel any Christian should claim that based on what Jesus said in John 3. TS: According to a 2006 national survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 78% of Americans consider the Bible to be the Word of God—not all take it literally, however. “Not all take it literally.” I hear this kind of thing said often, but it doesn’t make sense. It should be taken literally where it is meant to be taken so and otherwise when it isn’t. This usually isn’t hard to determine and, mysteriously, never seems to be such a problem with literature outside of the Bible. Why is the Bible so different? I think it is because many who wish to claim some respect for the Bible but don’t like what it says in many places when speaking literally, impose a non-literal interpretation where it is clearly not justified. Hence, all the controversy about literal interpreters and non-literal interpreters. I now of no one who takes the entire Bible literally, but there are reasons. There are clearly symbolic passages, allegorical passages (e.g. “He spake a parable to them...), poetic passages, passages in which an alternate perspective (e.g. under the sun) is established, and so on. But there are idicators, like “this is a parable (allegory),” “the ten horns are ten kings,” etc. What people usually really mean when they say they “don’t take the Bible literally” is that when it says things like you shouldn’t get drunk, fornicate, engage in homosexual activity, or that Jesus is the only way, they don’t hold to it because it is not politically correct or inhibits them in areas in which they’d prefer more freedom. So I don’t think that statement is generally made in reference to things such as prophecy at all. TS: So, if you believe evangelical Christians have no influence on U.S. policies toward Israel then these statistics don’t matter. A passing knowledge of recent electoral history would suggest otherwise. I really don’t even see where that is coming from. However, I do hope that believers, including evangelicals, are truly salt and light to this nation to some extent. I hope that they are the reason that Satan has not entirely deceived this nation as he has so thoroughly done with the highly secular and Islamic nations. I haven’t read any of the Left Behind series and don’t have much to say about them. I would be surprised if they didn’t make me cringe at times. TS: Is a peaceful settlement possible in Israel? Do you mean you wish the world to pursue it? Your argument (or the Arab point of view, as you called it) simply argued against their being founded in the first place and would seem to imply they should be dissolved. TS: Mike said, regarding countries who have built nuclear weapons: “I don’t think it was ever okay with the USA’s leaders, and we didn’t want those folks to get the bomb.” Okay, but did we threaten military action to prevent any of them from doing so? It matters who is getting the bomb, not that others are getting it. I find a certain inconsistency there. Yes, that was from me, but I find great logic in the fact that it matters who gets the bomb and I suspect you do too. Here is the hierarchy: It would be best if there were no big bomb, we’d rather even the most responsible nations did not have it. We’d naturally like it less for the less responsible nations to have it. If it should matter who gets it, where do you draw the line on responsible holders of the bomb? We’d like it less, surely for various militias to have it and least of all for practicing terrorist groups to have it. Iran may not be far from the terrorist groups. Indeed, Iran rather openly supports and arms Hezbollah. Pakistan is quite risky; we heard a while back about one of their scientists sharing this technology abroad. Of course it matters who gets the bomb. Should the Unabomber have it? TS: Please explain to me how you identify “ Israel” as, you believe they have some special place in biblical. I believe the physical descendants of Jacob are special, especially if they lay claim to that heritage in some way. I don’t know about a ¼ Jew who lays no claim to it in any way, but perhaps he is included. However, it is quite clear, in view of Romans 11, that the “enemies for our sake” are not Christians or believing Jews. This must be talking of the physical descendants of Jacob. Since God ordained this scripture, He is surely keeping track in some way. As to how that should be defined, I’m not entirely sure, but would err on the side of caution. Or perhaps I should alter the famous quote about pornography vs. art: I don’t know how to define it (Jewry or obscenity), but I know it when I see it. TS: This is precisely the argument which used to be advanced for refusing relations with Red China. Suddenly, it became okay to deal with those rotten commies and now most of my Christmas presents come from there and American jobs are being lost to China. Kinda odd? I don’t think that was or could be precisely the same argument used in the case of relations with China. I think it has much more to do with their past and current record on human rights for their own citizens. I don't know that we should have resumed relations, no matter how cheap their products are. For the record, I also think we should get off foreign oil. That is one place in which I would criticize Bush (also those preceding him). Bush has talked about it, but I don't see quite the commitment to it he has put into military action. TS: I find it perplexing that amillenialism is considered “allegorical” but many premills believe that the dream visions of John should be taken as literal. I don’t know what you mean by that either. In fact, much of the visions are taken symbolically because of clear symbolism (sometimes even explained as symbolism by the angel, e.g. “the seven heads are seven mountains”). There is a difference between symbolic interpretation and allegorical interpretation. Neither are entirely literal. Both must therefore be justified. Symbolism is clear at times due to immediate explanation as well as its clear connection to other biblical texts which explain similar symbolism. To all who are not extremely ignorant of scripture, a woman with 12 stars on her head giving birth to a male child who will rule all nations and who is caught up to God’s throne is clear symbolism for the nation of Israel, so I interpret it as such. This is what I mean by a *reason* to interpret non-literally. I will confidently claim that no normal person would get amillenialism simply from reading the Bible and trying to understand what is there. I understand it is appealing in some ways and seems to fit nicely in a broad sense, but it seems it would be quite a strain to allegoricize all the details as well. For example, if the first resurrection of Rev. 20 is the new birth (are you “born again?”), what the heck does it mean that those who were beheaded for their testimony came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years? What did all that tribulation represent? Of course, there may be answers for this, but I think it would have to get more and more elaborate, complicated, and hard to swallow. It seems we all have strong feelings about some of these things. I trust that we continue to feel the freedom to state our opinions and argument with force but without significant personal offense. Best regards, Ed |
|
Mike Burke
Jan 3rd, 2007 - 5:21 PM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
[Quote] I understand it is appealing in some ways and seems to fit nicely in a broad sense, but it seems it would be quite a strain to allegoricize all the details as well. For example, if the first resurrection of Rev. 20 is the new birth (are you “born again?”), what the heck does it mean that those who were beheaded for their testimony came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years? What did all that tribulation represent? Of course, there may be answers for this, but I think it would have to get more and more elaborate, complicated, and hard to swallow. [unquote] The classic amillennialist answer would be that the tribulation pictures the imperial persecutions of the Church, and the martyrs coming back to life pictures the reanimation of the Church under Constantine. Of course, the saints are not only said to come back to life and reign with Christ a thousand years, but to rule over the nations with "a rod of iron." If John's first resurrection really pictures the revival of the Church under Constantine, perhaps the persecution of heretics, the crusades, and the inquisition were the ruling with a rod of iron--but it wouldn't be politically correct to say that, would it? Also, we'd all have to return to mother Rome if we believed it, wouldn't we? It's been said that all roads lead to Rome, and I believe that's exactly where amillennialism leads. |
|
Truthseeker
Jan 4th, 2007 - 7:22 AM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
Mike (first)-- You said: "...asked whether anyone here meant to suggest that we should attempt to take the bomb away from Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, or China?...are you willing to admit that that would be an impossibility?" One can not stuff the genie back into the bottle; that goes without saying. The development of nuclear weapons by Iran abrogated its signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the U.S. abrogated the ABM Treaty but we were not subjected to international sanctions as a result—not that that is necessarily comparable). I oppose Iran or any other nations developing nuclear weapons, but can't the U.S. act fairly and consistently in our international diplomatic efforts? I don't believe we have. You seem to say, what is done is done so we can't do anything about it. While that is true, we CAN avoid repeating past mistakes. You ask which of the six choices you listed, I would choose. Well, it is not within my power to choose any of those, but you make it sound as if these are the only choices we have ever had. Granted, these may no longer be viable alternatives. When one paints oneself into a corner, it is difficult to find an exit. This is what we have done with our unbalanced approach to the Middle East. Should we abandon Israel? No, but the emphasis should be on diplomacy rather that saber-rattling. What about Iraq? How about a multi-national peace-keeping force made up entirely of troops from Muslim nations? Let them try to solve the Sunni/Shiite conflict between their co-religionists. Won’t work? How do we know? The U.S. has lost much credibility among Muslim nations, perhaps others can do better. Muslim fundamentalist extremism has been around for centuries, but only recently do we see a huge increase in terrorist activity from these people. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because “they hate freedom” or is it reaction to American militancy? Are we viewed in the third world as liberators or bullies? If we just “stay the course” do you honestly believe we will eventually “win” this so-called war on terror? History shows it is possible to negotiate even with enemies. We have done so on many occasions. Talk is infinitely better than war, but this has not been the mentality recently. You mentioned: “But the fact remains that Israel is the only nation to have been created by an act of the United Nations.” Correct, but does that mean that the UN handled the situation in the most fair and unbiased manner? Is it not possible that 200 million Arabs just might have a legitimate complaint or are they all wrong about the creation of Israel? When the UN made its decision, the vast majority of the third world nations were under European colonial rule. Europeanized, educated, relatively middle class Jewish refugees who had recently survived attempted mass extermination were favored by the Western Powers who created the UN. Is that a surprise? You said: “I also find it strange that you have no fear of basing decisions on false premises, should a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy turn out to be true.” On the contrary, I fear basing any decisions on a false interpretation of Bible prophecy. You may recall, that was the original request I made. The verses such as those in Zechariah are exactly what I originally envisioned this whole discussion would be about. I do not claim to have a clear view of how the various eschatologies explain many of the verses you could probably list. This is why I raised this whole debate to begin with. I am willing to admit it if I become convinced that I am wrong. I, too, incidentally, believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I don’t think it is nearly as clear as you make it sound—not to me anyway. You and Ed say you take the Bible “literally,” but I find it difficult to understand which is symbolic and which is literal. For example, you don’t believe in a literal dragon with ten horns, do you, but you believe the 1000 years is literal—how do you tell the difference--maybe it is simple, I don't get it. Now, Ed— You may have a point about Bush not being an evangelical. I found this quote: “Ayelish McGarvey wrote in an important article in The American Prospect (that didn’t get nearly the attention it deserved), despite the popular perception, Bush is not an evangelical Christian: Once and for all: George W. Bush is neither born again nor evangelical. Unlike millions of evangelicals, Bush did not have a single born-again experience; instead, he slowly came to Christianity over the course of several years, beginning with a deep conversation with the Reverend Billy Graham in the mid-1980s. And there is virtually no evidence that Bush places any emphasis on evangelizing—or spreading the gospel—in either his personal or professional life. Yet through a combination of high-profile attestations to faith (when asked in a debate who his favorite political philosopher is, he answered “Christ”) and nearly endless use of religious language and references to religious texts, Bush convinced evangelicals that he was right with God.” However, another source said: “Bush indeed presents himself as an evangelical Christian, and as such might witness to members of his staff, secret service agents, wayward family members, and others in private.” The problem here is: How do we define “evangelical” and “born-again?” I define an evangelical as one who professes to know Christ in a personal sense and is vocal about that relationship. I define any genuinely “saved” believer as born again. I do not subscribe to the idea that one must have a “Damascus road” experience to be considered “born again.” I believe if one is not born again, s/he can not truly be a Christian. Do you not agree? BTW, I consider myself to be a born-again evangelical Christian. I believe President and Mrs. Bush do, in fact, attend a Methodist church. My son-in-law and daughter are members of a Methodist Church. I believe most Methodists would consider themselves to be Christians, although they might not be too quick to use the “born again” evangelical description. From what I have read and heard from those who have read his book, George W. Bush on God and Country: The President Speaks Out About Faith, Principle, and Patriotism by George W. Bush, President Bush is pretty convincing in stating his faith. A friend of mine who had just completed Bush’s book said: “He is a Christian and we need to pray for this godly man, he has a difficult job.” I will not argue with that. So, from my perspective, Mr. Bush may indeed be a born-again evangelical Christian. I do not happen to believe his actions may always support a consistent practice of his faith, but I can not be his judge. I do not support many of his policies, and, yes, with the exception of the Democratic party’s general support of abortion rights, I do tend to support most of their proposals. If you think that makes it impossible to be a Christian, we will have to disagree. Yours: “I, like Dennis Prager above, feel it is fine and sometimes appropriate to criticize Israel as well as individual Jews who are misbehaving. But I can’t see anything other than a supernatural explanation for Jew hatred and hatred of Israel. Overall, the Jews have been a peaceful people who have contributed much to science, medicine, entertainment, and economics. What more could one ask of a race? And yet the ancient hatred burns ever hot.” I cannot disagree with this statement. However, I am not certain that this ancient hatred necessarily suggests that God has still some special purpose for them. I do not understand the various eschatological views well enough to decide. Yours: “I will confidently claim that no normal person would get amillenialism simply from reading the Bible and trying to understand what is there.” Well most of the early church fathers from Origen, St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. were all amillenialists. They, I suspect, had a fairly well-developed explanation for why they held that view. Seems to me that they may have had some insights which might be worth considering. I will try to do the research and figure this all out and perhaps I can discuss this with more knowledge another time. Yours: “Do you mean you wish the world to pursue it [peace in Israel]? Your argument (or the Arab point of view, as you called it) simply argued against their being founded in the first place and would seem to imply they should be dissolved.” No, that is not my point at all. I was trying to illustrate that mistakes were made in the past and we err to blink it away with a cavalier “Oh, well... nothing can be done about that now.” I did not at any time suggest that Israel should be “dissolved” nor do I hold “anti-Semitic” beliefs. I do not profess to have the answer to peace in the Middle East, but I don’t think more mistakes are the answer. Military action seldom, if ever, solves more problems than it creates. No, I do not want terrorists to have the BOMB, I don’t quite see your point in asking that. Regarding identification of “ Israel” you said: “I believe the physical descendants of Jacob are special, especially if they lay claim to that heritage in some way. I don’t know about a ¼ Jew who lays no claim to it in any way, but perhaps he is included. However, it is quite clear, in view of Romans 11, that the “enemies for our sake” are not Christians or believing Jews. This must be talking of the physical descendants of Jacob. Since God ordained this scripture, He is surely keeping track in some way. As to how that should be defined, I’m not entirely sure, but would err on the side of caution. Or perhaps I should alter the famous quote about pornography vs. art: I don’t know how to define it (Jewry or obscenity), but I know it when I see it.” I would have to say, I don’t know it when I see it (Jewry) because it is so vague a concept as to have virtually no meaning in some communities. I have spoken to many religious and some non-religious Jews and it is difficult to get a handle on what they are and I’m not so sure many of them even know themselves. A rabbi (Reform Jew) of my acquaintance told me that a Jew is anyone whose grandmother was at least half Jewish. I asked him if a Jew has to believe anything to qualify. No, he said, non-religious Jews are still Jews nonetheless. Likewise, one can undergo education to “convert” even if there is no ethnic or bloodline connection at all. Which of these are the physical descendants of Jacob? After centuries of intermarriage, are some Christians also in this category? The very passage of history, some might suggest, makes “physical Israel” a concept which does not really exist anymore—certainly racial characteristics are pretty weakly defined today. Well, I think it’s time to end this thread unless there is something really important to add. I do respect you (Mike and Ed) a great deal on a myriad of issues, as I have said often before. Hopefully, I have not offended you by my disagreement regarding these or any other topics. Best regards. |
|
Ed Smith
Jan 5th, 2007 - 6:04 AM |
Re: Amillenialism vs. Premillenialism
TS: What about Iraq? How about a multi-national peace-keeping force made up entirely of troops from Muslim nations? I never thought it was very hopeful we could establish a stable democracy in Iraq, but I didn't have much in the way of better ideas. I don't see why your idea would be better, but it might help set them all at each others throats, eventually eliminating some of the problem for us and Israel. I don't want this conversation to get more off its track into debating Iraq or what to do about it, so I'll say no more on that. TS: You and Ed say you take the Bible “literally,” Really? Did you miss my entire discourse on that topic? I guess we are all getting tired of this conversation; perhaps it is understandable if you overlooked it. Concerning the whole thing about who is "evangelical:" That's fine if you want to define it that way, but that's more what I thought you would just call "chrisitan." Oddly, I think I remember you referring to someone claiming "born-again" as if it were an ominous sign concerning their eschatology and prejudice for Israel, but now it seems you have nothing against it. Anyway, I was using "evangelical" to represent almost what used to be often called "fundamentalist" and doing that to indicate someone who would be likely to hold to something near the LaHaye idea or at least premill. As for a "normal person" reading the Bible and getting amillenialism, I stick to what I said about it not happening. You have to be pretty sophisticated and try rather hard to come up with an allegorical scheme for such things. TS: I do not profess to have the answer to peace in the Middle East, but I don’t think more mistakes are the answer. Military action seldom, if ever, solves more problems than it creates. If you don't have the answer, how can you object to what is done? If we don't have the answer, should we do nothing? Could that be a mistake also? Of course I don't think one should ever rush to war, but sometimes it seems unavoidable and does often solve problems. Avoiding war is good, denying that war has been declared against you can be disastrous. TS: No, I do not want terrorists to have the BOMB, I don’t quite see your point in asking that. Fair question. The answer is quite simple. You said (as I pointed out at the time): "Okay, but did we threaten military action to prevent any of them from doing so? It matters who is getting the bomb, not that others are getting it. I find a certain inconsistency there." You certainly seem to be criticizing the proposition that it matters who gets the bomb. Obviously, it matters to you also, and I was confident that this was really the case. TS: From what I have read and heard from those who have read his book, George W. Bush on God and Country: The President Speaks Out About Faith, Principle, and Patriotism by George W. Bush, President Bush is pretty convincing in stating his faith. Did you hear anything about him being obsessed with eschatology in that book or elsewhere? Did he even mention it? There is another president obsessed with eschatology, that is the president of Iran. It can be worrisome, but I haven't seen any similar obsession in any of our elected officials. I thought more about your question of identifying Jewry. Perhaps anyone who might be a target for common forms of antisemitism would be a good rule of thumb. Whatever it may be, Jews exist and the world, in general, seems to have a pretty good idea who they are. I don't think I have the means to determine exactly all those who are physical descendants of Jacob, but I assume God has kept up with this. Certainly, there are clear ways of determining some. I remember reading a few years ago how all those currently designated Jewish priests (supposedly descended from Aaron) have precisely the same Y chromosome, allowing for minor mutations over the years. This means they are all descended from one man through the paternal line. Interesting, isn't it? I will go out on a limb and say those guys are certainly all Jews. TS: You may recall, that was the original request I made. The verses such as those in Zechariah are exactly what I originally envisioned this whole discussion would be about. I do not claim to have a clear view of how the various eschatologies explain many of the verses you could probably list. This is why I raised this whole debate to begin with. It seems you may be lamenting that this discussion has turned so political. I can relate to that. Please recognize that you initiated the political part of this. You couldn't resist suggesting in your first message that our (Mike and I) eschatological view was leading to "faulty foreign policy." If you look at this page, you will see that the first 5 times the word "Iraq" appears, it was you who wrote it. Most recently, you waded deep into that ever divisive topic which is not at all necessary to this discussion. Furthermore, it wasn't necessary to get into that, even that we might know one another's views, since you have brought it up in the past. It is clear to me you are a very politically interested person. If you want to have non-political discussions, it may require some self-restraint. I respect you as well, but I felt that needed to be said. I hope it might help us stay on the topics we all really prefer in the future. If you raise political controversy with some who may lean in a different political direction, you cannot expect them to be silent or just agree with you. Best, Ed |
|
Mike Burke
|