Partial Preterist?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

At what point in the past did the 1,000 years begin and does that mean that the devil is actually "bound" now?

Thousand is a Hebraism for a huge number.

Cattle on a thousand years. It covers most all the church age.

[Esaias]

What is meant by "the church age" considering our common view of what constitutes the "church"?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is meant by "the church age" considering our common view of what constitutes the "church"?

New Testament era... last of all eras, I believe.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is meant by "the church age" considering our common view of what constitutes the "church"?

While the phrase "the church age" is not found in the language of the Bible, nevertheless when Stephen was brought before the council and it was demanded of him to justify his words that were alleged to have been blasphemous against Moses and against God, he spoke of God being present in "the church in the wilderness with the angel which spoke" to Moses in mount Sinai, is, to me at least, a scriptural-based indication for believing that the so-called "church age" is NOT restricted to a particular period of time (see Acts 7:38).

This I've concluded as being an era when God dealt with His church through the theopathy (a visible manifestation) of an angel (a spirit being), whereas in His church as it presently exists with the Son of man, Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior, as its Head, every member has been granted the privilege of a one-on-one personal relationship with the Spirit, thus the saying that Christ Jesus is the "mediator" between God (Spirit) and man (see I Timothy 2:5), and the church, as we know it today, is that church which our Lord referred to in His conversation with Peter (see Matthew 16:18).

In summation, I do not believe it appropriate or proper to restrict the presence of God's church to a particular time-frame, but that it has been present in the earth about 4,000 years, thus making this period of time the "church age," that is, if one desires to refer to it as such.

I'm not stating this as an indisputable fact, but simply my opinion tendered for consideration of its merits.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

New Testament era... last of all eras, I believe.

What I'm asking about is if the Millennium is "the church age", then does that line up with the actual history of the church? Considering we do not accept the visible majority representation of christianity throughout most of history as the actual church, how then do you understand the Millennium to be demonstrated throughout history?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What I'm asking about is if the Millennium is "the church age", then does that line up with the actual history of the church? Considering we do not accept the visible majority representation of christianity throughout most of history as the actual church, how then do you understand the Millennium to be demonstrated throughout history?

I understand the millennium to be portrayed in the way the bible speaks of the kingdom. Jesus is on every throne now that He is ever going to sit upon. And we are seated with Him. Rev 20 says people sat on thrones.

Jesus said you can't spoil the strong man til you first bind him. And if Col 2 says the devil's been spoiled by the work of the cross, then he must have been bound first.

Daniel said the stone that hit the image of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 became a mountain and filled the earth. That's the kingdom of God. It's spreading throughout history.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I understand the millennium to be portrayed in the way the bible speaks of the kingdom. Jesus is on every throne now that He is ever going to sit upon. And we are seated with Him. Rev 20 says people sat on thrones.

Jesus said you can't spoil the strong man til you first bind him. And if Col 2 says the devil's been spoiled by the work of the cross, then he must have been bound first.

Daniel said the stone that hit the image of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 became a mountain and filled the earth. That's the kingdom of God. It's spreading throughout history.

Yes but has that been demonstrated historically? From the 2nd century to the 1600s or so there was apostasy and an overflowing abundance of superstition being passed off as christianity. Reformation brought some relief from catholic domination but opened the floodgates of schism and every conceivable heresy, including the worst heresy of all: humanism (via the "Renaissance" and so-called Enlightenment).

Looking across history it just doesn't seem to match the idea of the pure gospel being victorious and spreading. It doesn't seem to match the idea of satan being bound so as not to deceive the gentiles anymore. Seems like deception has been the predominant theme of post apostolic religious history.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes but has that been demonstrated historically? From the 2nd century to the 1600s or so there was apostasy and an overflowing abundance of superstition being passed off as christianity. Reformation brought some relief from catholic domination but opened the floodgates of schism and every conceivable heresy, including the worst heresy of all: humanism (via the "Renaissance" and so-called Enlightenment).

Looking across history it just doesn't seem to match the idea of the pure gospel being victorious and spreading. It doesn't seem to match the idea of satan being bound so as not to deceive the gentiles anymore. Seems like deception has been the predominant theme of post apostolic religious history.

Like I said, I am talking this from what the word itself says. We know Christ is on the throne since He ascended and we're seated with him. That's enough for me. The detail most everyone misses in the deception issue in Rev 20 is that satan is bound from deceiving for a very specific deception... gathering nations against the church. That has never happened in a wholesale manner before, but it will.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Like I said, I am talking this from what the word itself says. We know Christ is on the throne since He ascended and we're seated with him. That's enough for me. The detail most everyone misses in the deception issue in Rev 20 is that satan is bound from deceiving for a very specific deception... gathering nations against the church. That has never happened in a wholesale manner before, but it will.

How are ypu defining "church"? During the dark ages, for example, were apostolic believers present and persecuted by the nations under the control of the Vatican? What about Communist nations persecuting Christians as a matter of government policy?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by esaias

yes but has that been demonstrated historically? From the 2nd century to the 1600s or so there was apostasy and an overflowing abundance of superstition being passed off as christianity. Reformation brought some relief from catholic domination but opened the floodgates of schism and every conceivable heresy, including the worst heresy of all: Humanism (via the "renaissance" and so-called enlightenment).

Looking across history it just doesn't seem to match the idea of the pure gospel being victorious and spreading. It doesn't seem to match the idea of satan being bound so as not to deceive the gentiles anymore. Seems like deception has been the predominant theme of post apostolic religious history.

yes exactly!