I have always been confused by this - but is the coc AS A DENOMINATION pre-millenialist, post-millenialist, or a-millenialist, or what exactly?
My memory basically says 'we never actually said anything about that' but I could certainly be wrong, since I pretty much mentally checked out of services from the age of 14 or so and didn't pay any attention. My rear was in the pew at every service, but the mental condition left the building as soon as the preacher said 'according to Paul'.
(Has there ever been, in the history of the coc, a sermon which did NOT contain the phrase 'according to Paul'?)
Question of random importance or none
Question of random importance or none
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
-
FinallyFree
- Posts: 2389
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:29 pm
- Location: Southaven, MS
Re: Question of random importance or none
I think a-millennialist—they don’t believe in that. I do think that is the correct view. My church holds the same view, as does the Catholic Church.
Re: Question of random importance or none
There is a small minority of Church of Christs that teach the premillenial doctrine. They are very few around a hundred or so. They were treated very nasty by the main liners and other groups. The closest congregation I know of that was premill was up in Denton about 80 miles away. Never went there but saw it in the book Where the Saints Meet. Lord forbid a good sound nonclass boy should find myself in a premill church or a bible class church or an anti orphan home church. What if Jesus should return and not find me in the church he started, the nonclass church of christ? Haw haw snort snort.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Re: Question of random importance or none
Most church of christs teach that jesus will return again and the deadxwill rise, the living saved meet him in the clouds and those lost will face the earth ending by fire. Then the formal judgement day will take place.
The premill teach there will be a thousand year reign of Christ then judgement day. What pissed the mainliners off about premillenialism is that they were afraid of the Darbyist version of premillenialism where jesus was going to come and set up his kingdom the first time but surprisingly got rejected and nailed to the cross, so he started the church and will establish what he really wanted to do in his second coming, coming with a big army of Angels. I never ever heard a premill church of christ preacher ever espouse that, at least not anything in the literature I've read they printed. They put out a magazine called Word and Work which i think you can find online.
The premill teach there will be a thousand year reign of Christ then judgement day. What pissed the mainliners off about premillenialism is that they were afraid of the Darbyist version of premillenialism where jesus was going to come and set up his kingdom the first time but surprisingly got rejected and nailed to the cross, so he started the church and will establish what he really wanted to do in his second coming, coming with a big army of Angels. I never ever heard a premill church of christ preacher ever espouse that, at least not anything in the literature I've read they printed. They put out a magazine called Word and Work which i think you can find online.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Re: Question of random importance or none
Read a coc publication ON PURPOSE?? I'm not THAT interested, BH!B.H. wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 2:23 am Most church of christs teach that jesus will return again and the deadxwill rise, the living saved meet him in the clouds and those lost will face the earth ending by fire. Then the formal judgement day will take place.
The premill teach there will be a thousand year reign of Christ then judgement day. What pissed the mainliners off about premillenialism is that they were afraid of the Darbyist version of premillenialism where jesus was going to come and set up his kingdom the first time but surprisingly got rejected and nailed to the cross, so he started the church and will establish what he really wanted to do in his second coming, coming with a big army of Angels. I never ever heard a premill church of christ preacher ever espouse that, at least not anything in the literature I've read they printed. They put out a magazine called Word and Work which i think you can find online.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Question of random importance or none
I agree with FF. They are a-mil.FinallyFree wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:48 am I think a-millennialist—they don’t believe in that. I do think that is the correct view. My church holds the same view, as does the Catholic Church.
~Stone Cold Ivyrose Austin~
Re: Question of random importance or none
I remember the CofC seeing the millenial reign as only spiritual, no literal reign ever on earth. And I think they preached that we are in the "millenial" reign now with Jesus at the right hand of God, reigning as King of the kingdom.
Well, that brings up all kinds of issues, all of which I guess will never be resolved. The main issue, ISTM, is the Lord's Prayer: "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", which to me means a new earth of some kind, with no evil because God's will is done everywhere. Certainly, as we live now, God's will is not being done here as it is in heaven, otherwise heaven would be a vile place.
Even Judaism had a concept of a reign on earth (in books such as Daniel and Ezra). And Christ went from synagogue to synagogue preaching that the kingdom of God was at hand (Wow! You mean he didn't preach the 5 steps to salvation??). So the audience he spoke to was already familiar with some concept of a literal reign of a king.
Perhaps the Christian concept of a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem, etc. comes closer to the Judaic concept, I don't know, maybe Agricola can explain more.
To me, it's like Christ "cracked" into the hardened earth and brought a glimpse of the true kingdom to come, Himself planting the mustard seed or "yeast" of the kingdom, i.e., the gospel, in the earth, at least to be internalized individually by believers, effectuating a transformational change in them of re-creation or renewal. But it seems there is to be a wait until the fruition of the "complete" kingdom of renewal and re-creation of the world at large, whenever that will be.
So, if Christians had concentrated more on wanting God to chisel away what needed to be chiseled away inside the inner man, resulting in an ongoing (albeit very slow) transformation by the kingdom of God internally, inside each individual, perhaps Christianity would not have become such a splintered, thorn-ridden tree rather than the intended mustard tree.
Well, that brings up all kinds of issues, all of which I guess will never be resolved. The main issue, ISTM, is the Lord's Prayer: "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", which to me means a new earth of some kind, with no evil because God's will is done everywhere. Certainly, as we live now, God's will is not being done here as it is in heaven, otherwise heaven would be a vile place.
Even Judaism had a concept of a reign on earth (in books such as Daniel and Ezra). And Christ went from synagogue to synagogue preaching that the kingdom of God was at hand (Wow! You mean he didn't preach the 5 steps to salvation??). So the audience he spoke to was already familiar with some concept of a literal reign of a king.
Perhaps the Christian concept of a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem, etc. comes closer to the Judaic concept, I don't know, maybe Agricola can explain more.
To me, it's like Christ "cracked" into the hardened earth and brought a glimpse of the true kingdom to come, Himself planting the mustard seed or "yeast" of the kingdom, i.e., the gospel, in the earth, at least to be internalized individually by believers, effectuating a transformational change in them of re-creation or renewal. But it seems there is to be a wait until the fruition of the "complete" kingdom of renewal and re-creation of the world at large, whenever that will be.
So, if Christians had concentrated more on wanting God to chisel away what needed to be chiseled away inside the inner man, resulting in an ongoing (albeit very slow) transformation by the kingdom of God internally, inside each individual, perhaps Christianity would not have become such a splintered, thorn-ridden tree rather than the intended mustard tree.
Re: Question of random importance or none
Well, YEAH -SolaDude wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:42 pm .....
Even Judaism had a concept of a reign on earth (in books such as Daniel and Ezra). And Christ went from synagogue to synagogue preaching that the kingdom of God was at hand (Wow! You mean he didn't preach the 5 steps to salvation??). So the audience he spoke to was already familiar with some concept of a literal reign of a king.
Perhaps the Christian concept of a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem, etc. comes closer to the Judaic concept, I don't know, maybe Agricola can explain more.
....
And this is a PERFECT example of what I keep telling people, that if they know nothing about late Second Temple Period Judaism AND the situation ON THE GROUND in Judea of that time, then NO, THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND what Jesus was talking about, talking TO Jews IN Judea AT THAT TIME.
Sheesh.
The Jews of that time heard that 'kingdom of God' and 'at hand' and they FLAT OUT KNEW that he was talking about overthrowing the Romans and re-establishing the kingdom of DAVID in JERUSALEM RIGHT THEN.
Literal king. Literal 'throw out the Romans' - he was talking sedition and rebellion and at least implicitly claiming to be the messiah - the anointed one - the TRUE KING.
LITERALLY.
You are not understanding the gospels if you do not understand that - whatever later Christian teaching SAYS Jesus was talking about, this is what he was ACTUALLY talking about, and what his audience was hearing.
I think, I REALLY think, that it is entirely possible that Jesus thought all he had to do was show up in Jerusalem (in a donkey, naturally) and God would perform a miracle and he would magically become king and the Romans would go away.
It didn't happen.
So he asks: God, why have you forsaken me?
The Romans executed rebels against imperial authority. Jesus was executed as a rebel against Roman authority. His crime was printed on a sign on the cross and it said 'King of the Jews' and that was a crime of rebellion against Roman authority (because THAT title was an imperial title by then) and they were RIGHT: he WAS a rebel against Roman authority, and he HAD hundreds or maybe thousands of ardent followers and he DID stir up civil unrest in Jerusalem at the Temple - and he was arrested, tried and executed for it.
The Jewish messiah was only EVER a claimant to the throne in Jerusalem, inheritor by line of male descent from King David's dynasty, which had ruled Judea for four hundred years before the Babylonian exile. And THAT was what 'the messiah' meant to a Jewish audience, and THAT is what Jesus admitted he was, or could be, both the the apostles in Caesarea Phillippi and in Jerusalem before whoever was administering Roman rule there at the time (rather unlikely that Pontius Pilate was there. His offices were in Caesarea and the Romans were actually pretty astute about not necessarily upsetting the natives - they tended to keep a low profile in Jerusalem, if possible).
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Question of random importance or none
Agricola,
Someone's got to go where angels fear to tread. I did a research project on the non Sunday schoolers alone that was of about 50 books read after I was done. It almost drove me nuts but I made it.
I think the argument for premillenialism is rather weak and lots of assumptions are made. I don't think the premillers should have been treated so nasty though. Their big mistake in my opinion is that they dont teach the coc is necessarily the only ones saved. By mistake I mean that is what really got the mainline pissedxatcthem.
Someone's got to go where angels fear to tread. I did a research project on the non Sunday schoolers alone that was of about 50 books read after I was done. It almost drove me nuts but I made it.
I think the argument for premillenialism is rather weak and lots of assumptions are made. I don't think the premillers should have been treated so nasty though. Their big mistake in my opinion is that they dont teach the coc is necessarily the only ones saved. By mistake I mean that is what really got the mainline pissedxatcthem.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Re: Question of random importance or none
You are a braver man than many, BH. I was only mildly interested. My understanding (such as it was) from my childhood church was that we didn't believe in a literal 1000 year reign (after Jesus returned but before Judgement day, I think) and I never developed much sympathy for the Rapture notions ('in case of Rapture, this car will be unoccupied!'
I think - you know what? - the coc prided itself a lot on reading the Bible and taking it, not only literally, but also LOGICALLY - which ended up with the coc typical member sniffing disparagingly at any and all 'emotional' expressions of religious faith - 'indwelling of the Holy Spirit' (well, maybe the apostles had that, but nobody SINCE), speaking in tongues, saying Amen out loud to the preacher, singing with TOO much enthusiasm - basically we were supposed to be kind of 'out and proud' without actually, you know, being REALLY out and proud, because that was embarrassingly crass, rude and generally low class. We were supposed to be SMARTER than that, and follow the Bible because it made SENSE.
Explains why we really DIDN'T do a whole lot of door knocking, I suppose. It was too OUT and PROUD, as well as taking things said in the Bible as if they ACTUALLY applied to today, when of course we all KNEW that kind of thing was really confined to the actual Apostles.
We were such snobs, really.
I think - you know what? - the coc prided itself a lot on reading the Bible and taking it, not only literally, but also LOGICALLY - which ended up with the coc typical member sniffing disparagingly at any and all 'emotional' expressions of religious faith - 'indwelling of the Holy Spirit' (well, maybe the apostles had that, but nobody SINCE), speaking in tongues, saying Amen out loud to the preacher, singing with TOO much enthusiasm - basically we were supposed to be kind of 'out and proud' without actually, you know, being REALLY out and proud, because that was embarrassingly crass, rude and generally low class. We were supposed to be SMARTER than that, and follow the Bible because it made SENSE.
Explains why we really DIDN'T do a whole lot of door knocking, I suppose. It was too OUT and PROUD, as well as taking things said in the Bible as if they ACTUALLY applied to today, when of course we all KNEW that kind of thing was really confined to the actual Apostles.
We were such snobs, really.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.