Augustine's unbiblical doctrine of Amillennialism

[dwight92070]

Excellent points !!!

Lot's of speculation about amillennism, which was the view held by most of the church for most of its history - until 1830 when Darby decided to make up stuff.

 

[dwight92070]

We are in agreement brother

The non-Catholic believers saw the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess. 2:3 as the Papacy and "he who restrains as the Roman government. When Rome was taken out of the way, the Papacy increased in political power, and is still in existence today, but it appears, with maybe some political power.
Anyway this interpretation offended the Catholic church, so a Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera, in the mid 1500's, decided that the man of lawlessness should be the antChrist, not the Papacy. So we have the beginning of another unbiblical doctrine, which continues to this day.

 

[Rockson]

There has never been world wide plagues happening at the same time wiping out 1/2 of mankind that is 3.5 billion people.

They really should consider this point and not lightly dismiss it. Can they REALLY claim this happened in the 1st Century? Really? I think if they give it some serious thought many would have to agree.....there's no way it could have occurred.

 

[armylngst]

taken from Wikipedia;
Darby is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism. Pretribulational rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830's by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the U. S. in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.
Darby's eschatology is still being propagated at Dallas Theological Seminary and by Hal Lindsey and John Hagee. Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism". Darby has been credited with originating the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation.

Please identify and come up with the pre -Christ Jewish literature that teaches what Darby taught. There is NONE - or else prove that there is.
Before Christ, nobody ever heard of a rapture of any kind, or a 2nd Coming (many were surprised at His 1st Coming), or a 7 year period called a tribulation or a 1000 year period after His 2nd Coming or an anti-Christ, or a 2000 year gap between Daniel's 69th week and the 70th week, so it would be quite a find to see Jewish literature from before the time of Christ with all of those predictions in it.

The trap is believing in Darby's totally made up end-time events and when they will happen.

It's also noteworthy that Darby was a Calvinist, another system of errors. Birds of a feather ...

If you want to learn about futurism, you need to read the works of Jewish writers before Jesus came to Earth. The rapture was spoken of centuries before Darby ever said anything. Brother Dolcimo taught that his followers would be raptured before the end times. What this shows is that the idea of a rapture predates Darby by centuries. Another early church father mentioned the rapture over a millennia before Darby. I see that you haven't actually taken the time to research this for yourself. It is a lot to go over. I mean, I have dabbled in it for over 30 years now off and on. I don't agree at all with dispensationalism, but I am pre trib premil. (Though I don't disagree with the possibility of a mid-trib as was put forward by the ECFs. Most of the early church fathers who spoke of a rapture, spoke of it occurring 3 1/2 years before the end. It seemed to be more in line with a pre-wrath view.

What you don't seem to understand is that the early Jewish writings completely change the understanding of the Olivet Discourse, and even Revelation. You have to consider that the disciples were not uneducated and clueless in the beliefs of Judaism, since everyone listened to the religious leaders. They would know the eschatological views of Judaism, through family or through their synagogue/religious leaders. Jesus told them that their beliefs were not wrong, but had left out a whole chunk of information. Their eschatology was that the messiah comes, destroys their oppressors (Rome) and then ushers in the kingdom from Jerusalem. Jesus told them, no, the Messiah suffers first. The end comes later. He doesn't tell them that they are wrong. They don't ask if they are wrong, the ask for the signs for the true end. Jesus tells them. The beginning of chapter 24 where Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem is completely separate from the Olivet discourse. The disciples aren't asking Jesus for signs for that, but signs of the end.

 

[armylngst]

Darby did not invent the Premill doctrine, that doctrine actually is Biblical.

But Darby did push a false pre-trib rapture, what he referred to as a secret rapture, because he had said only those raptured would know. Darby was an associate of the Edward Irving church, which was teaching a pre-trib rapture, so most likely that's where Darby picked it up. The fact for both though, is that no such doctrine was ever preached in a Christian Church prior to their day of 1830s Great Britain. Even some of their own scholars have admitted that.

So for about 1,800 years, the Christian Church held to Christ's future coming AFTER the tribulation, which is when God's Word shows His "thousand years" reign with His elect will start, which means a pre-mill coming. And this is not simply just my opinion. Those who disagree simply do not read their Bible, but allow some charlatan to tell them what The Bible does not say to deceive them.

Darby systematized the latest iteration of an Israel based, futurist, premillennialism with a rapture. Systematized. That is, all those beliefs had been circulating in the church long before Darby put it all together for a new, systematized premillennialism. (Dispensational premillennialism). There are other forms of premillennialism that don't find their root in dispensationalism, but align with it in that they both have a similar view of Israel in the end times. (Even Augustine had to admit that the Bible seemed clear on a future for Israel, one that he could not get around.)

The Jews also believed that the Messiah's coming (except they only believed in one coming) would come after tribulation, and that at the Messiah's coming, he would destroy Israel's enemies, and bring in His Kingdom in Jerusalem. This is what the disciples understood.

 

[civic]

Darby systematized the latest iteration of an Israel based, futurist, premillennialism with a rapture. Systematized. That is, all those beliefs had been circulating in the church long before Darby put it all together for a new, systematized premillennialism. (Dispensational premillennialism). There are other forms of premillennialism that don't find their root in dispensationalism, but align with it in that they both have a similar view of Israel in the end times. (Even Augustine had to admit that the Bible seemed clear on a future for Israel, one that he could not get around.)

The Jews also believed that the Messiah's coming (except they only believed in one coming) would come after tribulation, and that at the Messiah's coming, he would destroy Israel's enemies, and bring in His Kingdom in Jerusalem. This is what the disciples understood.

Ditto and good to see you my friend

 

[armylngst]

Ditto and good to see you my friend

Same. I'm just looking in. I got blocked on another site, so I just kind of gave up for a while.

 

[civic]

Same. I'm just looking in. I got blocked on another site, so I just kind of gave up for a while.

I read something yesterday I didn’t post it on the forum but maybe I will that reminded me of some of our discussions on PSA. It was by a reformer that emphasized substitution and not the penal aspect of the atonement. I’ll try and find it since I didn’t book mark it. It was something I could affirm even though it was PSA which from the traditional pov I reject.

 

[Doug Brents]

The doctrine of Amillennialism was formulated by Augustine of Hippo (354-430) around 400 AD, four centuries after the birth of Jesus Christ. (Think about how long that it for a second. The USA hasn’t even been a country for 250 years!) ‘Amillennialism’ literally means “no millennium” and unsurprisingly maintains that there will be no literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth before the eternal age of the new heavens and new earth, both of which are plainly detailed in Revelation 20-22.

Incredibly, this doctrine dares to suggest that we are already living in the Millennium; in fact, we’ve been supposedly living in it since the resurrection of Christ! Tell me, does it seem like Jesus has been reigning on earth for the last two thousand years? Does it appear like the devil has been bound up in the Abyss since Jesus’ resurrection in the 1st century? Of course not, the teaching is simply unbiblical and no sound student of the Scriptures would embrace the doctrine by simply reading the bible.

Even more incredible, Amillennialism teaches that we are simultaneously in both the Millennium and the 7-year Tribulation (!), the latter of which is chronicled in Revelation 6-19. Augustine’s reasoning was that the number 7 is symbolic and represents the period of time from the death/resurrection of Christ to his Second Coming. For those not in the know, the Tribulation is the 7-year period at the end of this age where God’s wrath will be poured out on the Earth wherein one quarter of the planet’s populace will perish followed by one-third of the rest (Revelation 6:8 & Revelation 9:18). Needless to say, no such calamity of this scope has happened since the ascension of Christ. Why? Simple: We’re not in the Tribulation as Amillennialism claims.

The only way Amillennialism can be accepted and perpetuated is by persuading Christian disciples through indoctrination in church or cemetery, I mean seminary. I repeat, believers would never see Amillennialism or accept it by merely reading/studying their Bibles. However, once disciples accept the idea that Amillennialism is unquestionable orthodoxy their studies of the scriptures will naturally be tainted and biased by their acceptance of this false doctrine; in other words, they’ll read the scriptures pre-supposing Amillennialism to be true, not freely or at face value, as is natural.

By contrast, when one studies the Bible free of such presuppositions, taking it simply for what it says, it isn’t difficult to see the error of Amillennialism.

The word ‘orthodox’ literally means “correct view.” What we determine to be orthodox Christian beliefs must be clearly and consistently taught in Scripture. In other words, if a doctrine is truly orthodox – that is, a “correct view” essential to Christian truth – it shouldn’t be necessary to engage in bizarre theological mumbo jumbo to prove its authenticity, like “spiritualizing” plain-as-day passages, which is what has to be done in order to “prove” Amillennialism.

The only way people who support Amillennialism can justify this doctrine is by convincing people that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it clearly says, which is that there will be a 7-year Tribulation period at the end of this age, then the devil will be bound up for a thousand years while Jesus Christ reigns on earth assisted by the resurrected saints (Revelation 20:1-6). To prove these plain truths one doesn’t have to resort to unjustified “spiritualizing” of the Scriptures, as is the case with Amillennialism. These truths can be discovered or proven simply by freely reading the Bible unhindered by foreign presuppositions.

How did a doctrine like Amillennialism come to be considered Christian orthodoxy when it’s so clearly unscriptural? The reason is that there’s another basis besides Holy Scripture used to determine the content of orthodoxy, and that is tradition. When people speak of Christian tradition they’re usually referring to religious literature, creeds and councils from the Patristic Age, or “late antiquity,” which extended from the 4th to the 8th centuries and includes Augustine’s advocacy of Amillennialism, as well as other errors. Augustine was the most prominent and influential “Church father” of this period. Christian tradition is also derived from other eras, including the later medieval, Reformation and post-Reformation eras. The very fact that Christian tradition is historically cumulative testifies that the worldwide invisible Church is in an ongoing state of reform; in other words, Christendom is not in bondage to historical tradition.

For important details on Amillennialism compared with the other views of the Millennium see this article by David Reagan, which features helpful diagrams. It contains vital information every believer should know about end-time events as prophesied in the Scriptures.

Why Am I Coming Down So Hard On Amillennialism?

Answer: Not just because Amillennialism is so grossly unscriptural, but because of the immense damage it has done to the body of Christ and our understanding of eschatology ever since it was concocted. (Eschatology, if you’re not aware, is the biblical study of end times events). For instance, to this day genuine believers all over the globe believe that when a person dies he/she either goes to Heaven to sit on a cloud playing a harp forever or goes to Hell to eternally roast in fiery torment. That’s it. If you think either of these is wholly true then Amillennialism has had a negative impact on YOU. Unfortunately, most unbelievers think this is what the Bible actually teaches; and most unseasoned believers as well. Why? Because of Augustine’s false doctrine of Amillennialism and the Roman Church’s official embracing of it in 431 AD at the Council of Ephesus. http://fountainoflifetm.com/2019/03/11/amillennialism-what-is-it-whats-wrong-with-it/

Thankfully, as with any erroneous belief, the truth will set us free (John 8:31-32).

The promised literal kingdom on earth—David’s—was what James and John’s mother referred to in Matthew 20:21. And just before Christ ascended to Heaven after His resurrection, this kingdom was still on the minds of the disciples when they asked, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Notice that the Lord didn’t ridicule them by asking something like, “Where did you ever get an idea like that?” No, it was legitimate for them to believe that this earthly kingdom would take place. Rather, He simply reminded them that it was not for them to know exactly when; that was God’s business. They were to concentrate on obeying the Great Commission after Jesus was gone to Heaven and on occupying until He returned, just as we believers still have the responsibility to do today.

Christ’s literal kingdom was prophesied in Jeremiah 23: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (vv. 5, 6). This is a promise, and it has yet to come to pass. If prophetic passages like these do not mean Christ’s millennial (1,000-year) reign, they are meaningless.

hope this helps !!!

I believe there is a little bit of truth and a whole lot of untruth in all of the "millennial" doctrines. For instance,

From Got Questions below why they reject the doctrine of amillennialism

Please note, as a ministry, GotQuestions.org rejects amillennialism. We truly and fully believe in premillennialism, that Christ will return to establish His kingdom, over which He will reign for 1,000 years.

It is clear from Scripture that the Kingdom of God was established in the first century (Matt 16:28). The Kingdom of God was established either at the resurrection of Christ or on Pentecost (both can be validly supported). But it had to have been established at least on Pentecost, because up until that time Scripture says "Kingdom of God is at hand", but after that time the Kingdom of God is no longer said to be "at hand" but exists, and we are the recipients and members of It.
We also see from Daniel 2:44 that in the days of the kings of Rome, God will establish His Kingdom that will never be destroyed. That Kingdom is the Church. But this does not mean that we are currently in the 1000 years. The 1000 years will not start until after the second coming of Jesus to Earth (Rev 19:7-19, Rev 20:4-6). Jesus has not returned yet, because everyone in the world will know for sure that He has returned (Rev 1:7, Matt 24:26-27).

So then, neither premillennialism nor amillennialism is correct in all aspects of their doctrine.

 

[armylngst]

I read something yesterday I didn’t post it on the forum but maybe I will that reminded me of some of our discussions on PSA. It was by a reformer that emphasized substitution and not the penal aspect of the atonement. I’ll try and find it since I didn’t book mark it. It was something I could affirm even though it was PSA which from the traditional pov I reject.

The penal aspect is there, however, it isn't the main focus. I think you recall I always said that the penal substitutionary atonement is but an aspect, the heart of the atonement. It isn't the main focus. However, the other theories/aspects all find a home when penal substitutionary atonement is the foundation. All it says is that the penalty that is ours for what we have done, He took upon Himself. Remember, Jesus told us He didn't come to grant us salvation by abolishing the law (that is obviously one way to do it), but by fulfilling the law. What is the fulfillment of the law? Death. So Jesus became our death, that He becomes our life. He took the penalty of our sin, death, upon Himself. He, the innocent one, died in our place, thus fulfilling the law in His body. That is why we say our sin was imputed to Him, and His righteousness is imputed to us.

(It is hard to understand). You keep talking about God's wrath, but I think you are confused on that. (You accepted what I was saying because I said the focus isn't on God's wrath, but on what Jesus did.) Based on Jesus time in the Garden of Gethsemane, it should be blatantly obvious that Jesus path was not full of roses, and some kind of vacation. He faced wrath, however it was because of us. And even then, Jesus was clear that He faced the cross for the Father. This is why Isaiah speaks of the mountains of praise, glory and honor heaped upon the Messiah by the Father. Why? For what the Son willingly faced, for the Father. (Ultimately for His children, but the Garden spoke of Jesus fulfilling the will of the Father.) John 6 does as well. Don't get lost in the woods. Don't decrease the praise and glory due to Christ for what He did. A lot of the arguments I saw (not necessarily from you) in the past came straight from feminists trying to undermine the cross.

Again, PSA is not all there is. It is the heart, it is that by which we are justified, but it is not the only aspect to the cross. You have the satisfaction, where Jesus death satisfied God, allowing God to reconcile with man. You have Christus victor, in that He, by taking our place, conquered death and hell for His children. You have a ransom, in that Jesus was our ransom, and stood in our place. So many different aspects, but PSA is at the base. Just like the Jewish high priest in the sacrifice of atonement imputed the sins of the congregation upon the scape goat (and the word used is imputed), so the Great High Priest imputed the sins of the church, God's children, God's congregation, onto the sacrificial lamb. In this case, it wasn't just a simple covering of sin, with a scapegoat running away, it was the eradication of sin. Sin's defeat. God coming to Earth to fulfill the law that He gave, in place of man, that man might be freed from the law of sin and death.

I'm pretty sure that is too much to read.

 

[civic]

The penal aspect is there, however, it isn't the main focus. I think you recall I always said that the penal substitutionary atonement is but an aspect, the heart of the atonement. It isn't the main focus. However, the other theories/aspects all find a home when penal substitutionary atonement is the foundation. All it says is that the penalty that is ours for what we have done, He took upon Himself. Remember, Jesus told us He didn't come to grant us salvation by abolishing the law (that is obviously one way to do it), but by fulfilling the law. What is the fulfillment of the law? Death. So Jesus became our death, that He becomes our life. He took the penalty of our sin, death, upon Himself. He, the innocent one, died in our place, thus fulfilling the law in His body. That is why we say our sin was imputed to Him, and His righteousness is imputed to us.

(It is hard to understand). You keep talking about God's wrath, but I think you are confused on that. (You accepted what I was saying because I said the focus isn't on God's wrath, but on what Jesus did.) Based on Jesus time in the Garden of Gethsemane, it should be blatantly obvious that Jesus path was not full of roses, and some kind of vacation. He faced wrath, however it was because of us. And even then, Jesus was clear that He faced the cross for the Father. This is why Isaiah speaks of the mountains of praise, glory and honor heaped upon the Messiah by the Father. Why? For what the Son willingly faced, for the Father. (Ultimately for His children, but the Garden spoke of Jesus fulfilling the will of the Father.) John 6 does as well. Don't get lost in the woods. Don't decrease the praise and glory due to Christ for what He did. A lot of the arguments I saw (not necessarily from you) in the past came straight from feminists trying to undermine the cross.

Again, PSA is not all there is. It is the heart, it is that by which we are justified, but it is not the only aspect to the cross. You have the satisfaction, where Jesus death satisfied God, allowing God to reconcile with man. You have Christus victor, in that He, by taking our place, conquered death and hell for His children. You have a ransom, in that Jesus was our ransom, and stood in our place. So many different aspects, but PSA is at the base. Just like the Jewish high priest in the sacrifice of atonement imputed the sins of the congregation upon the scape goat (and the word used is imputed), so the Great High Priest imputed the sins of the church, God's children, God's congregation, onto the sacrificial lamb. In this case, it wasn't just a simple covering of sin, with a scapegoat running away, it was the eradication of sin. Sin's defeat. God coming to Earth to fulfill the law that He gave, in place of man, that man might be freed from the law of sin and death.

I'm pretty sure that is too much to read.

Never too much to read on this topic. The atonement and the gospel go hand in hand but believe in one theory over another is not salvific. The gospel message is simple enough for a fisherman to be saved who doesn’t know a lick of theology. These are discussions to work through after one is saved not before which I’m sure you would affirm.

 

[armylngst]

I believe there is a little bit of truth and a whole lot of untruth in all of the "millennial" doctrines. For instance,

It is clear from Scripture that the Kingdom of God was established in the first century (Matt 16:28). The Kingdom of God was established either at the resurrection of Christ or on Pentecost (both can be validly supported). But it had to have been established at least on Pentecost, because up until that time Scripture says "Kingdom of God is at hand", but after that time the Kingdom of God is no longer said to be "at hand" but exists, and we are the recipients and members of It.
We also see from Daniel 2:44 that in the days of the kings of Rome, God will establish His Kingdom that will never be destroyed. That Kingdom is the Church. But this does not mean that we are currently in the 1000 years. The 1000 years will not start until after the second coming of Jesus to Earth (Rev 19:7-19, Rev 20:4-6). Jesus has not returned yet, because everyone in the world will know for sure that He has returned (Rev 1:7, Matt 24:26-27).

So then, neither premillennialism nor amillennialism is correct in all aspects of their doctrine.

Premillennialism is correct. Jesus never told the disciples that the premillennial view of the Jewish people was wrong. Just that their time line is wrong. This is why the disciples asked for the signs of the end. Jesus had told them that even though He is the Messiah, the end has yet to come. He was not on Earth to bring about the end. The Jews believed that once the Messiah came, the end has come. Rome would be destroyed, and the Messiah would bring in the kingdom in Jerusalem. That is one of the reasons why the everyone was so excited when Jesus got on the foal of a donkey, and made His way to Jerusalem. That was the modus operandi of the King. Historical precedence.

At the Olivet discourse, Jesus explained how the view of the Jewish people was wrong, since Jesus did not come to Earth at this time to bring about the end of the world. So the disciples asked for the signs of the end, and Jesus told them. The first couple verses of Matthew 24 are not related to the Olivet discourse. That happened before they even reached the mount of olives. This is where the preterists are wrong. (And also wrong on the date for the writing of Revelation, which is around 90 AD. There is a lot of evidence supporting that late date. Just as there is a lot of evidence for the early date for the writing of Daniel, which proves that there is actually predictive prophecy in the Bible, and that it had all been fulfilled as written.

 

[armylngst]

Never too much to read on this topic. The atonement and the gospel go hand in hand but believe in one theory over another is not salvific. The gospel message is simple enough for a fisherman to be saved who doesn’t know a lick of theology. These are discussions to work through after one is saved not before which I’m sure you would affirm.

Absolutely. Christ and Christ crucified is the gospel message. What He did, why, and what it means to the dying sinner. You have offended God, but God has come to Earth and by dying on the cross, fulfilled the debt you owed, that He might reconcile with His you. That is the heart of the gospel. Jesus took your place, paid your debt, that your sin stand between you and God no longer. The temple veil was torn. The way to God is through the cross.

 

[civic]

Absolutely. Christ and Christ crucified is the gospel message. What He did, why, and what it means to the dying sinner. You have offended God, but God has come to Earth and by dying on the cross, fulfilled the debt you owed, that He might reconcile with His you. That is the heart of the gospel. Jesus took your place, paid your debt, that your sin stand between you and God no longer. The temple veil was torn. The way to God is through the cross.

Amen !

 

[Doug Brents]

Premillennialism is correct. Jesus never told the disciples that the premillennial view of the Jewish people was wrong. Just that their time line is wrong. This is why the disciples asked for the signs of the end. Jesus had told them that even though He is the Messiah, the end has yet to come. He was not on Earth to bring about the end. The Jews believed that once the Messiah came, the end has come. Rome would be destroyed, and the Messiah would bring in the kingdom in Jerusalem. That is one of the reasons why the everyone was so excited when Jesus got on the foal of a donkey, and made His way to Jerusalem. That was the modus operandi of the King. Historical precedence.

At the Olivet discourse, Jesus explained how the view of the Jewish people was wrong, since Jesus did not come to Earth at this time to bring about the end of the world. So the disciples asked for the signs of the end, and Jesus told them. The first couple verses of Matthew 24 are not related to the Olivet discourse. That happened before they even reached the mount of olives. This is where the preterists are wrong. (And also wrong on the date for the writing of Revelation, which is around 90 AD. There is a lot of evidence supporting that late date. Just as there is a lot of evidence for the early date for the writing of Daniel, which proves that there is actually predictive prophecy in the Bible, and that it had all been fulfilled as written.

There are a couple of things about the Olivet discourse that I think are significant, but seem to be missed by many who try to put all of it in the future. Verse 34 says that the generation to whom He was speaking right then would not pass away before the things He had just said would take place. These are the events that took place in AD70. Then, after that, He talks about things that are still future to us: the Second Coming.

 

[civic]

There are a couple of things about the Olivet discourse that I think are significant, but seem to be missed by many who try to put all of it in the future. Verse 34 says that the generation to whom He was speaking right then would not pass away before the things He had just said would take place. These are the events that took place in AD70. Then, after that, He talks about things that are still future to us: the Second Coming.

It is possible like other OT prophecies that there is a double fulfillment in different timeframes. Such as in Daniel 9 with the 70 weeks.

 

[Doug Brents]

It is possible like other OT prophecies that there is a double fulfillment in different timeframes. Such as in Daniel 9 with the 70 weeks.

That is always possible, but the fact that Jesus said that those to whom He was speaking would not die until after that prophecy was fulfilled is very significant, and points (I believe) to a single fulfillment, not double. But again, I am not an expert in eschatology, nor have I studied it as extensively as maybe I should.

 

[Rockson]

This is where the preterists are wrong. (And also wrong on the date for the writing of Revelation, which is around 90 AD. There is a lot of evidence supporting that late date.

Preterists have asserted a pretty bold claim that all the things of Revelation occurred before or on 70 AD. They MUST therefore have the writing of Revelations to take place before that date. I would tend to think that if that were true God would know it would be crucial to define when Revelation was written. I would expect a statement similar to Luke 2: 1,2 on a different subject

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire. 2This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

If preterims were true I'd expect a statement like that. It would have settled the issue. We don't read of such a qualifier therefore I'd hold that seeing God didn't want to see the time frame closed it leads me to believe in futurism at least with most of the things within Revelation.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The statements in this thread that Darby somehow came up with the Dispensational viewpoint on his own is absolutely without merit. The Jews were the original Dispensationists. Their expectation was of a person to save them from persecutions and change their political status completely into an independent and free state. Where how God dealt with them before was entirely different from their expected life under their coming messiah.

This expectation was well known - even outside of the Jewish people. An example of this is in the writings Suetonius:

A firm persuasion had long prevailed through all the East, that it was fated for the empire of the world, at that time, to devolve on some one who should go forth from Judaea.

C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Divus Vespasianus, chapter 4

Until the very last moment before Messiah Jesus ascended, the disciples were still under the assumption that an earthly kingdom for their own people was about to happen.
[Act 1:6 LSB] 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
(BTW, notice they include the term Israel - all 12 tribes - not just Judah/Benjamin.)

But he said to them: It is not yours to know/reveal this time or appointed times which the Father has set in place according to His own authority. But rather after the Holy Spirit will come on you, you will receive powerful ability and will become witnesses in Jerusalem and throughout Judea and also in the prepared fields of Samaria as far as the ends of the earth.
(translated from the Aramaic https://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Acts+1:7)

Jesus informed them that the timing of this kingdom would be revealed after they had received the power of the Holy Spirit and started taking this message throughout their homeland and far beyond. We know this to be true since the expected millennium was written about in Peter's writings and in John's book of Revelation. It was known by them and revealed.

 

[Rockson]

I believe there is a little bit of truth and a whole lot of untruth in all of the "millennial" doctrines. For instance,

It is clear from Scripture that the Kingdom of God was established in the first century (Matt 16:28). The Kingdom of God was established either at the resurrection of Christ or on Pentecost (both can be validly supported). But it had to have been established at least on Pentecost, because up until that time Scripture says "Kingdom of God is at hand", but after that time the Kingdom of God is no longer said to be "at hand" but exists, and we are the recipients and members of It.
Matt 24:26-27).

I think there are various ways in which the Bible talks about the Kingdom of God but we look at the context of the passage to get the feel of what it's meaning.

eg, We can talk about other things as well but we look to context. A simple word like "government" can mean different things. Are you talking about municipal, state or provincial, or federal? It can mean different things....so with a statement like the Kingdom of God.

I believe I'm right to say the Kingdom of God was established on earth when becoming born again became a reality. The Kingdom of God is within you. In that context it a spiritual position we have in Christ.....but on the other hand there is a Kingdom that has yet to be established where Christ rules the nations with a rod of iron. Both are right but it's using the Kingdom in a different context and not just one.

I do think we've missed it on just what our primary mandate upon the Earth is. Is it to build a big church of a certain gathering of believers....and we create all this under one roof Kingdom? Other gathering of believers in our cities who go to different "churches" they're really of the one same Kingdom as far as God is concerned. We should always be wanting other believers to do well for really their battle is our battle and when they've advanced....we all have. Just like players on a sports team! When they've got a home run....we all have!

I was thinking too.....just why do we want answers to our prayers? To provide peace and comfort in our personal lives? God is interested in that, not saying he isn't BUT....if we think in a more mature way it should be when we get an answer to prayer we can share it.....the Bible calls it prayer fruit.....other's see God's goodness and they're encouraged to come to God for the goodness of God leads us to repentance. The Kingdom of God is advanced!

The advancement of the Kingdom is why we live! We look upon that as more important than anything our flesh might like to do so we can ask each day how have we advanced the Kingdom ? Was there anything we did where we can say the day was worth it from an eternal perspective? Or was it merely filled with achievements of our own personal Kingdom.....OK I got a new job today.....I got a new house......I got my diploma for advancement not saying those things are bad you can use them to serve the Kingdom but where's is ones heart? We should have this way of thinking. Kingdom of God advancement is and must be the priority. That is what we live for and that is what we die for.