Sources of Amillennialism?

According to the pre-wrath website:

amillennialism is a human creation that developed out of the nascent Roman Catholic church

Is their claim true? What do they mean by nascent? What does it matter anyway?

The Augustine Question?
First of all, who was Augustine? He was one of the earlier and stronger proponents of the Amillennial viewpoint, but was he a Roman Catholic? Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo, which was in northern Africa. Bishops were not appointed from Rome at that time. They were independent of Rome.

What other views came out of the same time frame?
The Trinity is one of them. It was present earlier, but it came out of that time frame. The reference to the Roman Catholic church is anachronistic since the the Roman Catholic church did not take form until the 7th century.

A proposed better wording

Amillennialism was taught in the Early Church

Nascent means newly born. How could the church be newly born if it wasn't born for centuries afterwords? The use of Roman Catholic and the attempt to tie it to the Amillennial teaching is perverse and at best it is poisoning the well by appealing to the anti-Catholic sentiment of many evangelicals.

Separating the ragweed from the dandilions

How do we separate the two teachings - the pre-tribulational rapture and pre-wrath rapture? What are the differences between the two? Based on my reading the pre-wrath position is merely a sub-species of Dispensationalism.

Clearly, the pre-wrath folks have recognized that the few rapture texts can be more reasonably read in ways other than the pre-tribulations readings. However, they have not yet rejected their Dispensational roots holding to a Jewish restoration to the ancient land of Israel.

In a way, this difference is one without much substance to it. Both believe that the church age is a parenthesis in the middle rather than the original goal of God. Both see merit in being born of the Jewish people, something which Jesus spent most of His teaching ministry combating. The only difference is whether the church will be removed before the peaceful part of the tribulation period or before the later non-peaceful part.

In a way, there's a certain sort of logic to this.

Why would God remove people if they are not actually in immediate danger?

My History
I abandoned pre-trib within months of becoming a Christian at a church which emphasized pre-trib. I did much study on the subject and quickly recognized that the verses which were used to support the teaching were being read in a way that did not allow the text to say what it was actually saying. I saw how my friends put their faith in pastors, like Chuck Smith, rather than being able to defend the teaching.

I got ahold of a tape which presented post-trib and by the time I was half way through the front side the matter was answered for me. The large pile of passages against the position and the poor exegesis of the small pile of passages which were claimed to support the rapture made the results inevitable.

Israel in Romans 11

Pre-wrath and pre-tribbers are fond of quoting Romans 11 as evidence of a future for Israel. They rarely provide a thorough exegesis of the entire chapter, and to do so is beyond the scope of this page, but I will present one passage which is problematic to their position right out of Romans 11. How can they account for this passage?

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

For Paul Israel's future with respect to God was not a given, unless this is a mythical hypothetical and is dismissible as such. Rather, for Paul it was possible that Israel might not come to faith.

The condition for admittance for Israel is the same as it is for the Gentiles, faith in Christ.

The whole chapter refutes their central notion, namely that there are two peoples of God. Today and in the future there are and will be only one people of God, those who come to Him in faith. Israel, through unbelief, has separated herself from God. If and when she comes to faith in Jesus as their Messiah, she will be saved.

Strawmen

Here's another strawman from the pre-wrath page

So, it is illegitimate when an Amillennialist asserts, "This Bible passage says the kingdom is happening right now, therefore it is completely fulfilled in all its aspects with no future reality to be realized.” The reasoning does not follow Biblically as we noted above because the nature of the kingdom of God is inaugurated and progressive, which will be realized in all its fullness at the commencement of the age to come.

First of all, this doesn't sound like anything I have ever heard any Amillennialist say. That's not to say that there are none that would say this, rather that it's quite out of the norm for Amillennialists to say that there is no future aspect of the Kingdom. That would be silly since for the Amillenialist, at the very least, the entire church history which was future from 30 AD is seen by Jesus as part of the Kingdom of God.

Secondly, I know of no Amillennialist who denies the Second Coming as a future event. Some hyper-preterists assert that, not no Amillennialist that I have ever read or heard of would assert such a thing.

Pre-Wrath Passages

Just took a look at the splash page for http://www.prewrathrapture.com/. There is an argument given on the splash page that is interesting but extremely easily refuted. The passage in question is Acts 1:1-9 where Jesus is asked if He is going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Jesus does not answer the question, but tells the disciples that they are not to know the day or the hour which the Father has in His control.

The author of the article then states that since Jesus did not correct them He must have been in agreement with the presumption of their question. The author writes:

His answer assumes a future Israel, and thereby in this shared assumption with the disciples Jesus defers the answer to when the kingdom will be restored to Israel to the Father’s sovereign timing.

Logically, this is a classical example of the fallacy of the argument from silence. Put simply, silence does not necessarily imply agreement. Remember the elementary school quote about what happens when we ass-u-me?

What did Jesus agree with?
Did Jesus agree that Israel had a future as a people? He did not say either way. What did their question indicate? What they did know is that Jesus was the King of Israel and He had risen from the dead. Why didn't the King take authority over His kingdom and do it immediately? Why stay in a small group even after the resurrection? Why not march straight up to Herod's palace and take control? They had asked this same question in different forms at many times in the past. Each time it demonstrated that they still did not get it. Why is this time different?

Jesus' answer pre-figures what was about to happen. The King was taken away from them once already in death, but He was raised from the dead. What happened next clearly took them by surprise, the King was once again taken away from them. They were so stunned that they kept looking up into the sky. In fact, they were so taken back that an angel came and told them to stop looking up. Jesus would return, the angel said, in the same manner in which He had departed.

What Was the Expectation of the Apostles?
Even after being with Jesus for 40 days between the empty tomb and the ascension they did not understand that Jesus would be departing. So much for their understanding of the Kingdom of God. The one thing that they did know is who the King was, Jesus. What the author of this paper asks us to believe is that they were taught about some future kingdom and then surprised when the King left them. The core argument of the page is then refuted by the very text which the author claims supports his position.

Secondly, the assumption of the author is that the Kingdom of God is future, relating to the reign of Jesus from the Earth, rather than present with Jesus reigning right now from Heaven. When Jesus preached the kingdom of God and the disciples asked about the Kingdom and Israel the two are not necessarily referring to the same thing. To the disciples, the Kingdom was still an earthly and immediate expectation. To Jesus is was also immediate, but for Jesus it would be the age of the Spirit of God in the church.

Thirdly, the apostles demonstrate that prior to Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit came, they had an amazing ability to listen to teaching and not get it. Jesus had told the apostles many times about how He was going to die and then be raised up. What was so special about the 40 days when they did not get it in 3-1/2 years?

The question that the Apostles asked could also be stated as a question, "If you really are the King, why not take the Kingdom now"?

Paul's statement at the end of Acts says it all:

Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

The Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospel was first offered to them. Rather than accept Jesus as their King, they chose to follow false prophets and they went to their own deaths in 67-70 AD.

What did Luke Mean by Kingdom of God?
Luke explains later what he means by the Kingdom of God:

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

The preaching about the Kingdom of God is that the King is Risen!

Amen

The Phoenix Preacher: Blissfully or Invincibly Ignorant?

Here is the latest inane quote from the PP:

Whatever your position is on the Rapture, this is the foundation stone you build the doctrine on and it’s a foundation under attack from amillennialism and preterism.

This weeks posts will give you a starting place to understand and defend the premill position intelligently and Biblically.

This guy just can't keep his categories and definitions straight. What is the rapture? Is the "rapture" denied by amill and preterists? What does the rapture have to do with Pre-millenialism?

Unfortunately, the rapture is a term which has several meanings and going to the Greek or English New Testaments don't help in clearing them up. Webster's gives a problematic definition of the rapture as:

3 often capitalized : the final assumption of Christians into heaven during the end-time according to Christian theology.

If that's the definition of rapture then I personally deny it as being a Biblical doctrine. And most Christians historically would deny it as a doctrine of the faith unless heaven is more clearly defined.

What do you mean by Heaven(s)
There are at least a few "heavens" in the Bible. The birds fly in one of them, the stars are in another and God "lives" in yet another one of them. But (the third) Heaven comes down to Earth in the form of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation so it is reasonable to conclude that Heaven is not our final destination but the Earth.

So by that definition, Christians would not be taken to Heaven unless the rapture occurred before the end of the Tribulation period. Therefore, most Christians would deny the rapture but it's the definition they are denying, not the basic concept. The basic concept is that Christ will return bodily for His church.

A Working Definition of Rapture?
But if the definition of rapture were slightly altered then very few Amill or Preterist folks would take disagree.

the final assumption of Christians to be with Christ during the end-time according to Christian theology

The Second Coming is the Real Issue
You see, Amill and (most) Preterist folks do believe in a future, personal Second Coming of Christ and that's the key issue. The big difference is that they only believe in one Second Coming, not two or more Second Comings. The Pre-millennialist believes in at least two Second Comings and at least three Second Comings if they hold to some form of Rapture doctrine as described above. Along with the multiple Second Comings they also have to believe in multiple different resurrections - at least three if you are a Pre-Tribulationalist or Pre-wrath advocate.

What did Jesus say?
Jesus never spoke of multiple Second Comings, multiple resurrections or multiple "last days". He spoke of all of these as being at the end of time. It's no more complicated than that. Jesus told us we would suffer tribulation in this world but to be of good cheer since He had overcome the world. The lives and deaths of the martyrs of the Church show that few escape persecution who chose to live righteously in Christ.

What is the history of the doctrine
Pre-millinarians were around for much of the earliest church history phase but by the time of Augustine, the view was seriously on the decline and would have been characterized as cultic at that time.

On the other hand, pre-tribulationalism as a sub-species arose less then 200 years ago and other than the speculations of an 18th century writer or two the idea had no advocates prior to that time. It is completely unknown in Church History. None of the early Church writers wrote about it. It's not in any of the creeds of the church or any of the councils, either. That doesn't make it automatically false. Someone could have discovered it 1800 years later than Christ and the Apostles. It's newness just makes it suspect.

Pre-Wrath Patchwork Quilt
The pre-wrath view is a weak attempt to salvage the pre-tribulational rapture from its exegetical death throws. Still there are no texts which teach it (see previous post "The Cluelessness Continues" where I explain how the texts used for pre-wrath are often misused). It is used by people who want to cling to the idea that they will escape general wrath by being taken off the Earth.

Conclusion
Let's keep what is most important at the top of the list. Christ is coming again to raise the dead, change the living into immortal beings, judge the dead and the living and rule and reign on the Earth forever. That is agreed to by all Christians. As the old creed says "From thence (Heaven) He (Jesus Christ) shall come to judge the living and the dead". That is the doctrine that needs defense, not the pre-wrath or pre-trib rapture doctrine.

Phoenix Preacher Contines Implosion

The Phoenix Preacher continues to send people to his favorite Calvinist (actually so-called Reformed Baptist) writers. The latest writer that he sends people to read is one of his favorites, John Piper. This time Piper writes on the subject of the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities. You don't have to go far into the article until Piper blows it once again taking the Phoenix Preacher down with him.

Piper quotes a passage from the New Testament that is one of the more obscure texts. Not because it is hidden, but because it is rarely well explained by preachers, particularly those who are after spiritual "notches on their belts". It's the following passage from Luke 13:1-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Exactly how does Piper misuse the passage? He fails to understand and take account for the passage both in it's textual and historical contexts.

What is that passage about?
The passage itself provides the clue. It is not at all about natural disasters, as Piper claims. It's about rebellion against the Roman civil authorities. Pilate put to death people who were rebels against his authority. The collapse of the tower was not another natural disaster but a similar event. Both of these groups were not caught up in some newsworthy tragedy, they were both conspirators against the Roman authority of Pilate.

The warning Jesus is giving in the text is not some generalized warning about repentance at all. Nothing to do with that. He is warning the people of his day that if they rebel against the Roman authority using armed resistance that they would die just like those others had died. Jesus is using the word "repent" in the very literal sense of "change your mind". To paraphrase, Jesus is saying that if they don't repent about their plans to fight Rome with arms they will die like the others who already tried?

Did Jesus get it right?
But was Jesus right? Of course. In 67-70 AD the Jews did exactly what Jesus had warned them not to. They openly rebelled against Rome and the siege of the city of Rome was their downfall. They were carried out into the nations.

The followers of Jesus did not join in with the Jews who rebelled against Rome. They fled the city, just as they were warned to do by Jesus less than 40 years earlier. The judgment against Israel prophesied by Jesus had begun and they knew if they stuck around what would happened.