I believe we agree somewhat on eschatology. I wonder what it would look like if Christ was not reigning? N Korea and Nigeria every day? Everywhere? I'm always amazed when dispensationalists point to Christ's imminent return because God wouldn't allow the N American church to suffer persecution. Read the Bible, Folks.
Also, amen to building his Kingdom! I came to amillennialism kicking and screaming by my 2 oldest son passing on what they had learned. However, I love the biblical viewpoint of his Kingdom increasing until it is ready to pass to the Father. It gives you so much more incentive to go out and spread the gospel. I find the view that everything will continue to degrade until Christ has to step in to rescue his Bride not very reassuring. My one son recently told me...you know, Mom, amillennialism is the car pool to post-millennialism! You better get in! lol
We probably do agree a lot when it comes to the end times. I think about what things would look like if Christ weren’t reigning. I think it would look like craziness, and if we think it’s bad now, we wouldn’t be able to fathom how bad it could be.
Good thing we don’t have to. God in his sovereignty made it so we have always had a King on the throne. Never has there been m, nor will there ever be a time when that’s not true.
As far as suffering and tribulation, that’s a whole other topic that would get people revved up. I’m with you, though- no rapture to avoid the tribulation. We will be in tribulation until Christ returns.
Robert, I reread your comment several times. I confess I am so thoroughly entrenched in premillennialism it is quite difficult to even entertain your claims.
We must not forget our perspective and our Lord’s perspective are not the same. He sees reality in the eternal present. As we now live in this physical world our Lord’s sovereign reign seems to be yet future. Without the lens of faith we cannot see it any other way.
Yet, as you well know the Prophets often wrote their prophecies as though they were writing history.
Their visions seemed to be already passed.
The only way the eternal God can be who he says he is; he must reign beyond the constraints of space/time.
This is how he can be omniscient and omnipresent. He exists in the entire span of eternity as eternally present.
In this sense Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore he is eternally sovereign in the eternal present.
Now, Jesus described himself to the theologians of his day as: “The I AM.”
This enraged them because he was claiming divine sovereignty well before the end of life on earth as it is today.
Almillennialism can only serve as a limited explanation of how humans understand Jesus as he seems to be not as he truly is. He is not going to be King of kings and Lord of lords. He already is.
John saw him in the mid 90s AD. He had a name already written: “King of kings and Lord of Lords.”
I continue to embrace historical premillennialism. I hope this clarifies my view for you.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. I appreciate your honesty, and I can certainly respect your commitment to the historic premillennial position.
I think we've identified the areas where we differ, so I'm fine with leaving it at that. Both of us affirm that Jesus Christ is the sovereign King of kings and Lord of lords who will one day come back bodily to judge the living and the dead and establish His everlasting kingdom.
Thank you for the conversation. In spite of our differences of opinion, these discussions encourage me to study the Scriptures more carefully and to practice faithfully handling God's Word.
I loved this. I haven't really arrived at a position on this question as of yet (I think you make all solid points here, but I've heard solid points made the other way too, and haven't studied it nearly enough for myself yet to claim a position!), but I just wanted to commend you for this line in particular "It is okay to disagree, so long as we hold firmly to the orthodox truths of the end times: Jesus Christ will return bodily, He will judge the living and the dead, and He will establish His everlasting kingdom." <<that line sums up my position, lol. Not to minimize the importance of studying the question; every part of Scripture is important, and I understand there are downstream implications of the theology one holds regarding the end times. But I think you got the crux of the matter there, the most important thing to keep in mind no matter which camp one lands in.
I haven't finished J Daniels book yet, working through it slowly with note-taking so that it doesn't just slip right out of my brain like water off a duck's back, but I'm loving it so far.
Jesalyn (love your name by the way; my daughter’s name is Josslyn), thank you for engaging. First, I have not finished all of Daniels’ book either. It’s such a good read, but it requires some brain work. Haha.
I’m glad we agree on the main things, and we can keep the main things, the main things. I had a pastor once who used to say, “Don’t major on the minors.” I’ve tried to stick to that.
Theology is mega important, and it shouldn’t be done “willy-nilly” or half-heartedly. All of it has implications. With that said, differing views of end times or soteriology aren’t gonna keep people out of the kingdom. Sadly, it causes believers not to want to fellowship with one another.
If you’d like book recommendations, I’d be more than happy to send them along.
You caught me just before I gotta go out the door, but had to take a second to say; I literally ALWAYS want book recommendations, yes pleaseandthankyou!
And I love the name Josslyn, too! My daughter's name is Jeralyn. That was what my mom almost named me, but she decided at the last min that "Jes" would be a better nickname with "Randall" than "Jera", so, the name wound up skipping a generation.
You are the first person I have ever seen actually state that you are an almillennialist.
I studied almillennialism in college as I prepared for the ministry. But not one of our students, and not one of our professors publicly claimed to believe the positions of almillennialism.
You listed some of the many biblical passages that affirm the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
The day Jesus was crucified he was nailed to a wooden cross yet he was in perfect, absolute control of everything happening.
He wasn’t killed. He laid down his life. He suffered only as much as was necessary to satisfy the wrath of his own holiness.
The Apostle Paul declared Jesus is LORD. He cannot be Lord of all if he is not Lord right now.
Premillennialism is the only view of eschatology that honors the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that in the beginning of your comment that you are agreeing with what I have said. I am confused by your last statement of,
“Premillennialism is the only view of eschatology that honors the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.”
As you stated earlier in your comment, “You listed some of the many biblical passages that affirm the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.”
I do believe in the sovereignty of Christ. That’s actually one of the central emphases of amillennialism. Could you explain why you believe premillennialism is the only view that honors Christ’s sovereignty?
Also, are coming from a historic premillennial view or a premillennial dispensational view?
Robert, I cannot reconcile almillennialism with Scripture. There is just no way to hermeneutically read the Bible and come up with almillennialism.
I suppose I will have to “agree to disagree,” with your position and statements. I mean, I do not see even the first point where we might agree.
You are saying you believe in the sovereignty of Jesus Christ yet apparently he is not sovereign right now. Or are you saying he is sovereign without an actual kingdom?
Jesus clearly declared himself the head of a kingdom that is not of this world.
The Kingdom of Heaven is far superior to all the authorities and principalities in this world. Yet, it is a very literal kingdom not a figurative one.
Thank you for your response. I am completely okay with the fact that you cannot "reconcile amillennialism with Scripture" and believe that "there is just no way to hermeneutically read the Bible and come up with amillennialism." I am not attempting to persuade you to adopt my view. My goal is simply to understand your position and have a charitable, Bible-centered discussion.
I think we may be talking past one another. My article argues that Christ is sovereign right now, is reigning right now, and does presently possess a kingdom. In fact, that was the entire point of citing passages like Acts 2:33-36, Ephesians 1:20-22, Colossians 1:13, Hebrews 10:12-13, and Revelation 1:5.
I am not arguing that Christ has no kingdom or that He is not reigning. I am arguing that His kingdom has been inaugurated but not yet consummated.
Could you help me understand which of those passages you believe does not teach Christ's present reign? Or anoter way to ask the question is, could you help me understand how you interpret those passages differently than I do? I think that would help us move from simply stating our conclusions to discussing the biblical texts themselves.
I believe we agree somewhat on eschatology. I wonder what it would look like if Christ was not reigning? N Korea and Nigeria every day? Everywhere? I'm always amazed when dispensationalists point to Christ's imminent return because God wouldn't allow the N American church to suffer persecution. Read the Bible, Folks.
Also, amen to building his Kingdom! I came to amillennialism kicking and screaming by my 2 oldest son passing on what they had learned. However, I love the biblical viewpoint of his Kingdom increasing until it is ready to pass to the Father. It gives you so much more incentive to go out and spread the gospel. I find the view that everything will continue to degrade until Christ has to step in to rescue his Bride not very reassuring. My one son recently told me...you know, Mom, amillennialism is the car pool to post-millennialism! You better get in! lol
We probably do agree a lot when it comes to the end times. I think about what things would look like if Christ weren’t reigning. I think it would look like craziness, and if we think it’s bad now, we wouldn’t be able to fathom how bad it could be.
Good thing we don’t have to. God in his sovereignty made it so we have always had a King on the throne. Never has there been m, nor will there ever be a time when that’s not true.
As far as suffering and tribulation, that’s a whole other topic that would get people revved up. I’m with you, though- no rapture to avoid the tribulation. We will be in tribulation until Christ returns.
Come, Jesus, come!!!
Robert, I reread your comment several times. I confess I am so thoroughly entrenched in premillennialism it is quite difficult to even entertain your claims.
We must not forget our perspective and our Lord’s perspective are not the same. He sees reality in the eternal present. As we now live in this physical world our Lord’s sovereign reign seems to be yet future. Without the lens of faith we cannot see it any other way.
Yet, as you well know the Prophets often wrote their prophecies as though they were writing history.
Their visions seemed to be already passed.
The only way the eternal God can be who he says he is; he must reign beyond the constraints of space/time.
This is how he can be omniscient and omnipresent. He exists in the entire span of eternity as eternally present.
In this sense Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore he is eternally sovereign in the eternal present.
Now, Jesus described himself to the theologians of his day as: “The I AM.”
This enraged them because he was claiming divine sovereignty well before the end of life on earth as it is today.
Almillennialism can only serve as a limited explanation of how humans understand Jesus as he seems to be not as he truly is. He is not going to be King of kings and Lord of lords. He already is.
John saw him in the mid 90s AD. He had a name already written: “King of kings and Lord of Lords.”
I continue to embrace historical premillennialism. I hope this clarifies my view for you.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. I appreciate your honesty, and I can certainly respect your commitment to the historic premillennial position.
I think we've identified the areas where we differ, so I'm fine with leaving it at that. Both of us affirm that Jesus Christ is the sovereign King of kings and Lord of lords who will one day come back bodily to judge the living and the dead and establish His everlasting kingdom.
Thank you for the conversation. In spite of our differences of opinion, these discussions encourage me to study the Scriptures more carefully and to practice faithfully handling God's Word.
I wish you grace and peace, brother.
I appreciate your kind words and truly respect your work. God bless you Robert.
I loved this. I haven't really arrived at a position on this question as of yet (I think you make all solid points here, but I've heard solid points made the other way too, and haven't studied it nearly enough for myself yet to claim a position!), but I just wanted to commend you for this line in particular "It is okay to disagree, so long as we hold firmly to the orthodox truths of the end times: Jesus Christ will return bodily, He will judge the living and the dead, and He will establish His everlasting kingdom." <<that line sums up my position, lol. Not to minimize the importance of studying the question; every part of Scripture is important, and I understand there are downstream implications of the theology one holds regarding the end times. But I think you got the crux of the matter there, the most important thing to keep in mind no matter which camp one lands in.
I haven't finished J Daniels book yet, working through it slowly with note-taking so that it doesn't just slip right out of my brain like water off a duck's back, but I'm loving it so far.
Jesalyn (love your name by the way; my daughter’s name is Josslyn), thank you for engaging. First, I have not finished all of Daniels’ book either. It’s such a good read, but it requires some brain work. Haha.
I’m glad we agree on the main things, and we can keep the main things, the main things. I had a pastor once who used to say, “Don’t major on the minors.” I’ve tried to stick to that.
Theology is mega important, and it shouldn’t be done “willy-nilly” or half-heartedly. All of it has implications. With that said, differing views of end times or soteriology aren’t gonna keep people out of the kingdom. Sadly, it causes believers not to want to fellowship with one another.
If you’d like book recommendations, I’d be more than happy to send them along.
You caught me just before I gotta go out the door, but had to take a second to say; I literally ALWAYS want book recommendations, yes pleaseandthankyou!
And I love the name Josslyn, too! My daughter's name is Jeralyn. That was what my mom almost named me, but she decided at the last min that "Jes" would be a better nickname with "Randall" than "Jera", so, the name wound up skipping a generation.
I love your daughter’s name as well. So cool! I’ll DM you the book rec’s.
I'd be interested in those book recommendations as well.
Check your DM’s
You are the first person I have ever seen actually state that you are an almillennialist.
I studied almillennialism in college as I prepared for the ministry. But not one of our students, and not one of our professors publicly claimed to believe the positions of almillennialism.
You listed some of the many biblical passages that affirm the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
The day Jesus was crucified he was nailed to a wooden cross yet he was in perfect, absolute control of everything happening.
He wasn’t killed. He laid down his life. He suffered only as much as was necessary to satisfy the wrath of his own holiness.
The Apostle Paul declared Jesus is LORD. He cannot be Lord of all if he is not Lord right now.
Premillennialism is the only view of eschatology that honors the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that in the beginning of your comment that you are agreeing with what I have said. I am confused by your last statement of,
“Premillennialism is the only view of eschatology that honors the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.”
As you stated earlier in your comment, “You listed some of the many biblical passages that affirm the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.”
I do believe in the sovereignty of Christ. That’s actually one of the central emphases of amillennialism. Could you explain why you believe premillennialism is the only view that honors Christ’s sovereignty?
Also, are coming from a historic premillennial view or a premillennial dispensational view?
Thank you.
Robert, I cannot reconcile almillennialism with Scripture. There is just no way to hermeneutically read the Bible and come up with almillennialism.
I suppose I will have to “agree to disagree,” with your position and statements. I mean, I do not see even the first point where we might agree.
You are saying you believe in the sovereignty of Jesus Christ yet apparently he is not sovereign right now. Or are you saying he is sovereign without an actual kingdom?
Jesus clearly declared himself the head of a kingdom that is not of this world.
The Kingdom of Heaven is far superior to all the authorities and principalities in this world. Yet, it is a very literal kingdom not a figurative one.
Thank you for your response. I am completely okay with the fact that you cannot "reconcile amillennialism with Scripture" and believe that "there is just no way to hermeneutically read the Bible and come up with amillennialism." I am not attempting to persuade you to adopt my view. My goal is simply to understand your position and have a charitable, Bible-centered discussion.
I think we may be talking past one another. My article argues that Christ is sovereign right now, is reigning right now, and does presently possess a kingdom. In fact, that was the entire point of citing passages like Acts 2:33-36, Ephesians 1:20-22, Colossians 1:13, Hebrews 10:12-13, and Revelation 1:5.
I am not arguing that Christ has no kingdom or that He is not reigning. I am arguing that His kingdom has been inaugurated but not yet consummated.
Could you help me understand which of those passages you believe does not teach Christ's present reign? Or anoter way to ask the question is, could you help me understand how you interpret those passages differently than I do? I think that would help us move from simply stating our conclusions to discussing the biblical texts themselves.