# Any Historic Premillennialists on Here?



## Christian Teegardin (Sep 26, 2016)

I hold to post-tribulation (historic) premillennialism, and do not agree with most Reformed Christians' amillennialism. In all other points of doctrine, we're simpatico, but eschatology is a tough one.

I used to be what Reformed folk call a 'Dispensational.' Yes, a dispensationalist. I used to believe in the happy-dandy 'all the Christians will rise up into Heaven and maybe the folk down there will get a chance to ask Jesus into their heart.' Note the Arminianism. I was an Arminian, so I endorsed that thought for awhile. Now I will _obliterate_ it through Calvinistic soteriology.

Here's some points I'll make:

1. If all Christians (elect) go to Heaven at the Rapture (before the tribulation), the world will be entirely populated by reprobates. That's not true by any means.
2. But obviously, there is going to be a persecuted Church during the tribulation, so dispensationalism is in serious error regarding the pre-tribulation Rapture.
3. Therefore, I have to conclude that in order for the Bible, Calvinism, and premillennialism to make sense together, I would have to say that historic premillennialism is the way to go, since the Rapture will happen after the Tribulation is over, or at least right before the wrath of God.

I hold the view of John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Al Mohler, Francis Schaeffer, and Gordon Clark.

Anyone agree with me?


----------



## Edm (Sep 26, 2016)

I read that Spurgon was only a part time Premil. So you can only count him as a half...


----------



## Christian Teegardin (Sep 26, 2016)

Hmm, interesting, thanks for the information. I am more fond of Spurgeon than Calvin, so I put Spurgeon as my avatar, but I do like Calvin.


----------



## Toasty (Sep 26, 2016)

Christian Teegardin said:


> I hold to post-tribulation (historic) premillennialism, and do not agree with most Reformed Christians' amillennialism. In all other points of doctrine, we're simpatico, but eschatology is a tough one.
> 
> I used to be what Reformed folk call a 'Dispensational.' Yes, a dispensationalist. I used to believe in the happy-dandy 'all the Christians will rise up into Heaven and maybe the folk down there will get a chance to ask Jesus into their heart.' Note the Arminianism. I was an Arminian, so I endorsed that thought for awhile. Now I will _obliterate_ it through Calvinistic soteriology.
> 
> ...



I'm just wondering about something. I have a question about those who believe that all Christians will be raptured before the tribulation. Do they believe that some people will become Christian after the rapture and before the tribulation ends? Do they believe that some people could read some surviving Christian literature after the rapture and before the tribulation ends and believe in Jesus?


----------



## Christian Teegardin (Sep 26, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Christian Teegardin said:
> 
> 
> > I hold to post-tribulation (historic) premillennialism, and do not agree with most Reformed Christians' amillennialism. In all other points of doctrine, we're simpatico, but eschatology is a tough one.
> ...



Yes. Their Arminianism allows them to do so. My Calvinism prevents me from even entertaining dispensationalism as a possibility.


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 27, 2016)

Christian Teegardin said:


> Francis Schaeffer



Schaeffer believed in historic pre-mil?


----------



## Christian Teegardin (Sep 27, 2016)

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=68390&blogid=6211


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 27, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> Christian Teegardin said:
> 
> 
> > Francis Schaeffer
> ...



Yes. See his short book Basic Bible Studies.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 22, 2016)

Christian Teegardin said:


> I hold to post-tribulation (historic) premillennialism, and do not agree with most Reformed Christians' amillennialism. In all other points of doctrine, we're simpatico, but eschatology is a tough one.
> 
> I used to be what Reformed folk call a 'Dispensational.' Yes, a dispensationalist. I used to believe in the happy-dandy 'all the Christians will rise up into Heaven and maybe the folk down there will get a chance to ask Jesus into their heart.' Note the Arminianism. I was an Arminian, so I endorsed that thought for awhile. Now I will _obliterate_ it through Calvinistic soteriology.
> 
> ...



Brother, I really appreciate this post. I have been amill most my Christian life, but I am leaning towards Chiliasm. Not entirely there yet, but leaning there. I do see the church going through all tribulations prior to 1 Thessalonians 4. Great post and maybe we can speak about this some more?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 22, 2016)

Hello Willis,

You said, "I do see the church going through all tribulations prior to 1 Thessalonians 4." I'm amil, and I see the same thing. That is the standard view for contemporary amils.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 23, 2016)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Willis,
> 
> You said, "I do see the church going through all tribulations prior to 1 Thessalonians 4." I'm amil, and I see the same thing. That is the standard view for contemporary amils.



That is why I can see Chiliasm as being biblically true. That view and amill hold to this central theme(truth). It's the millienium I am trying to flesh out. Wherever He is, I wanna be.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 23, 2016)

convicted1 said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Willis,
> ...



Read Kim Riddlebarger. He helped get me out of my Dispensational mindset. While I see nothing heretical or wrong with historic premillennialism, I see it as a remaining vestige of a woodenly literal hermeneutic.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 23, 2016)

Willis, did you see the thread I just started, Thoughts on similarities between the premillennial and amillennial views? Here a snippet from that on the millennium,
About the thousand years, it’s a special number in Scripture, and it means completeness to the nth degree, as in Psalm 50:10, where all the beasts of the forest are His, and “the cattle upon a thousand hills”—not _only _a thousand, but _all_ the hills in the world. The thousand years are _all_ the years of the church age, from Christ’s first coming till right before His second. 

A literal thousand years in earthly Jerusalem makes three ages, this present time, the Jerusalem reign age, and then the eternal age, whereas Jesus—who spoke of two ages only—when talking of the one who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, said this sin “shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (age), neither in the world to come” (Mt 12:32). He said it again in Lk 18:29, 30; Lk 20:34, 35; and Mt 13:39, 40, 49. He repeatedly says there are only two ages—not three! The 1,000 year “age” of an earthly Jerusalem reign of Christ contradicts Scripture.​
Can it be supposed the glorified Lord would come to reign in old creation Jerusalem, in a temple of crumbling stones, over a population of unregenerate living dead who will revolt against Him 1,000 years later? How utterly anti-climactic and futile! The New Testament temple is the church: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor 3:16) And there are supposed to be two Armageddons, and two raptures—one each before the 1,000 years, and one each after? That sort of double vision means the false seer needs new glasses.

Rather, He reigns in the heavens among the "*souls* of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus" (Rev 20:4) during the entire church age, the period symbolized by a thousand years. See the thread I referenced above, for more.

And in that thread I talk of the legit similarities between the two schools; but the real _dis_similarities need to be pointed out and debunked.


----------



## Alex Foo (Oct 24, 2016)

hi, i'm quite a newbie and i hold on to pre-trib premil. My eschatology is identical to that of John MacArthur through literal reading of 1 Thes 4, Revelation 4, 19.

I'm exploring on amil, post-trib etc but i couldn't get past literal reading of Romans 9-11, concerning that Israel will eventually be grafted back to the vine. Also, I couldn't get past that OT promises not be fulfilled literally on Israel (though now apostate). Help?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 24, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> convicted1 said:
> 
> 
> > Jerusalem Blade said:
> ...



Trust me, I am NOT a Dispensational in any shape, form, or fashion. Yet, I _can_ see where God does turn to Israel the nation and graft them back in via belief. I think Brother Voddie Baucham said something really well in a sermon based on Romans 11:25-32 where he said that the USA is the largest Jewish nation and God could fulfill that passage alone, by grafting in Jews to the true Israel here in America.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 24, 2016)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Willis, did you see the thread I just started, Thoughts on similarities between the premillennial and amillennial views? Here a snippet from that on the millennium,
> About the thousand years, it’s a special number in Scripture, and it means completeness to the nth degree, as in Psalm 50:10, where all the beasts of the forest are His, and “the cattle upon a thousand hills”—not _only _a thousand, but _all_ the hills in the world. The thousand years are _all_ the years of the church age, from Christ’s first coming till right before His second.
> 
> A literal thousand years in earthly Jerusalem makes three ages, this present time, the Jerusalem reign age, and then the eternal age, whereas Jesus—who spoke of two ages only—when talking of the one who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, said this sin “shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (age), neither in the world to come” (Mt 12:32). He said it again in Lk 18:29, 30; Lk 20:34, 35; and Mt 13:39, 40, 49. He repeatedly says there are only two ages—not three! The 1,000 year “age” of an earthly Jerusalem reign of Christ contradicts Scripture.​
> ...



As I said previously, I am not in any camp as of now. I once was staunchly amill, but I can see where Chiliasm _could_ could be biblical. I just haven't fleshed it out yet. I have read Revelation a few times, but I get mixed up when I try to figure out what is literal and what is figurative.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 24, 2016)

Alex Foo said:


> hi, i'm quite a newbie and i hold on to pre-trib premil. My eschatology is identical to that of John MacArthur through literal reading of 1 Thes 4, Revelation 4, 19.
> 
> I'm exploring on amil, post-trib etc but i couldn't get past literal reading of Romans 9-11, concerning that Israel will eventually be grafted back to the vine. Also, I couldn't get past that OT promises not be fulfilled literally on Israel (though now apostate). Help?



I would be closer to post-trib pre-millennial as I see the church going through tribulation right up unto our King returns.


----------



## Leslie (Oct 24, 2016)

I mostly agree with your position. It seems though that the folks who quote Jesus' "one shall be taken and the other left" have it wrong. In the case of Noah it was the wicked that were taken and the righteous left.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 24, 2016)

Leslie said:


> I mostly agree with your position. It seems though that the folks who quote Jesus' "one shall be taken and the other left" have it wrong. In the case of Noah it was the wicked that were taken and the righteous left.



The ones who have the church raptured prior to the tribulation have differing views. Some believe ppl will be saved during that seven years of tribulation(3.5 years of trib and another 3.5 years they call great trib). But, if the church and the Spirit are pulled out of earth, then none could be saved. 

I am not saying I am a Chiliast yet, and I may go back to the amill camp, but eschatology is not something I truly get fired up about to debate it that much. Now, DoG vs free will....let's debate!! Lullz...


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 27, 2016)

I am now on of them!

Was fora long time a firm believer that the Bible taughta Rapture distinct from Second Coming, but see both now as being the same event...

Do also still hold to Jesus returning to set up the fullness of His Kingdom here upon the earth at his Second Coming...


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 29, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> I am now on of them!
> 
> Was fora long time a firm believer that the Bible taughta Rapture distinct from Second Coming, but see both now as being the same event...
> 
> Do also still hold to Jesus returning to set up the fullness of His Kingdom here upon the earth at his Second Coming...



That's where I am not fully convinced as of yet. Yes, He is returning. But does He touch _terra firma_? Not settled enough to give an answer.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 29, 2016)

I base this upon the Bible stating that he will set foot upon the Mount of Olives at His Second Coming...

Also d see a dustinction between the Kingdom Jesus sets up here upon the earth, and theNew Jerusalem Eternal State after that time!


----------



## Warren (Oct 29, 2016)

Christian Teegardin said:


> I used to be what Reformed folk call a 'Dispensational.' Yes, a dispensationalist. I used to believe in the happy-dandy 'all the Christians will rise up into Heaven and maybe the folk down there will get a chance to ask Jesus into their heart.' Note the Arminianism. I was an Arminian, so I endorsed that thought for awhile. Now I will _obliterate_ it through Calvinistic soteriology.


Hey, me too, brother! Believed in the 144,000 Jewish virgins, and all.

_... nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst._


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 29, 2016)

Edm said:


> I read that Spurgon was only a part time Premil. So you can only count him as a half...



Spurgeon did not speak often on the subject. But in every case in which he stated his view, it was premil. Nevertheless, various amils, premils and postmils have tried to claim him. 

I think the idea of Spurgeon as a one time postmil has to do with some comments in a sermon (or a few sermons) regarding the spread of the gospel in this age.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 30, 2016)

I used to be hard-line premil, but then I recently moved to something akin to amil (or at least Vosian Two-Age), but because I openly challenged some Platonic vestiges in some amil treatments, some questioned my Christianity. I can't win for losing. LOL.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 31, 2016)

Think that he held to the view that Jesus would be returning to Earth and set up His Kingdom at that time here upon the earth, and that while he was NOT a Dispensational, did hold to Israel as a nation/people being converted at return of Christ...


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 1, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> I base this upon the Bible stating that he will set foot upon the Mount of Olives at His Second Coming...



Where does it say He would step foot in the Mount of Olives upon His return?



> Also I see a distinction between the Kingdom Jesus sets up here upon the earth, and the New Jerusalem Eternal State after that time!



Where do you find this in scriptures? Asking to study this out further. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 1, 2016)

In Genesis 17, God tells Abraham His covenant with his descendants would be everlasting, and the land would be an everlasting possession as well.

Now, in Romans 4, Paul writes that Abraham was the father of all those who believe. So, in Christ, who is the true Israel, Jews and Gentiles are one.

This is what caused me to rethink my amil view. The same Hebrew word for 'everlasting' is the same word. So, if the world is burned up as the amil view states, how then can the land be an everlasting possession, seeing it has been burned up, dissolved?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2016)

convicted1 said:


> Where does it say He would step foot in the Mount of Olives upon His return?



Zech. 14. That's not my view but that's what most premils hold.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 1, 2016)

Hello again, Willis,

In the eternal state, earth has been cleansed by fire—whether utterly dissolved and recreated, or its surface burned away and remade, commentators vary—and upon this New Earth the city of God, New Jerusalem, has come down (Rev 21:1,2,3). The land promises now are fulfilled not only by the boundaries of old Israel but include the entire earth ("the meek shall inherit the earth"). The Israel of God possesses the world, indeed, the universe.

Zechariah 14:1,2,3,4 was the last thing I let go of from my premil days, that is, interpreting it literally. I now believe it stands for the ravaging of the church during the age, and particularly its being overcome at the very end. Although it is certainly possible the Lord could touch upon the Mount of Olives at the end, though I think Rev 6:14, "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places" indicates that upon His return the earth will not remain intact. The two witnesses of Rev 11 were the next-to-last thing I relinquished upon embracing the amil view.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 1, 2016)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again, Willis,
> 
> In the eternal state, earth has been cleansed by fire—whether utterly dissolved and recreated, or its surface burned away and remade, commentators vary—and upon this New Earth the city of God, New Jerusalem, has come down (Rev 21:1,2,3). The land promises now are fulfilled not only by the boundaries of old Israel but include the entire earth ("the meek shall inherit the earth"). The Israel of God possesses the world, indeed, the universe.
> 
> Zechariah 14:1,2,3,4 was the last thing I let go of from my premil days, that is, interpreting it literally. I now believe it stands for the ravaging of the church during the age, and particularly its being overcome at the very end. Although it is certainly possible the Lord could touch upon the Mount of Olives at the end, though I think Rev 6:14, "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places" indicates that upon His return the earth will not remain intact. The two witnesses of Rev 11 were the next-to-last thing I relinquished upon embracing the amil view.



I think Zechariah 14 speaks of a future time and not something that occured during the Christ's earthly ministry. Seems the writing speaks of future events. Seems like John Gill's commentary is spot on. But I, and Gill, could be wrong.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 1, 2016)

There will be a vast Earthquake at that time, so would place it at His second coming...


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 1, 2016)

Jesus sets up the Kingdom here on all the earth when He returns, as all peoples and nations will acknowledge Him as the Lord...

After that era, Bible states thatHe turns all ofthat to His father, so that God is all...

D see this is essentially a more literal view of how to understand prophecy...


----------



## MW (Nov 1, 2016)

convicted1 said:


> I think Zechariah 14 speaks of a future time and not something that occured during the Christ's earthly ministry. Seems the writing speaks of future events. Seems like John Gill's commentary is spot on. But I, and Gill, could be wrong.



Didn't Gill interpret the feast of tabernacles spiritually? That doesn't seem consistent to me.

Believers in Christ keep the feast, v. 16. Believers in Christ are holy to the Lord, and whatever they use in service to the Lord is also holy, v. 20, 21. If this prophecy awaited fulfilment believers could not be called "saints." But believers are repeatedly addressed as "saints" in the New Testament. That is an eschatological realisation of Old Testament apocalyptic visions.

This prophecy is understood to refer to an eschatological judgment necessitated by the Lord coming to save His people from the covenant curse of international invasion. The curse was borne by Christ. Believers in Christ are delivered from the curse. He is the restoration promised in the book of the covenant. Unbelieving Israel suffered the full weight of the curse and have been cut off for ever, just as was foretold by the prophets. The benediction is pronounced on the Israel of God, the children of Abraham according to the promise, identified in Galatians as those who believe in Christ, the promised Seed.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 2, 2016)

Zechariah 14 talks about e.g. living waters flowing out to the world. We've very much had that since the beginning of the NT era.

There's been a great earthquake. The end of the OT administration and the beginning of the New.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 2, 2016)

The Jews were not revived as a nation though at that time, and the earthquake was saidto be in aliteral/physical fashion...

Think that making it a spiritual one really is reading into the passage our theology!


----------



## MW (Nov 2, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> The Jews were not revived as a nation though at that time, and the earthquake was saidto be in aliteral/physical fashion...
> 
> Think that making it a spiritual one really is reading into the passage our theology!



See John 7 for the rivers of living water in relation to the feast of tabernacles as fulfilled in the glorification of Jesus and the the giving of the Spirit.

The giving of the Spirit is the specific sign of the last days, Acts 2. It inaugurates a spiritual economy which sets the people of God free from bondage to those earthly elements which were part of the Old Testament economy. The Old Testament speaks of this new age according to the types with which it was familiar. We read the fulfilment in the light of the Antitype. It is not a matter of reading our theology into the passage, but of reading it with the veil taken away. 2 Corinthians 3.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 3, 2016)

And this would be an issue where A Mil and Pre Mils would see things in a different fashion, as we would tend to see those passages being fulfilled in a literal sense when Jesus returns toi earth...


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 3, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> And this would be an issue where A Mil and Pre Mils would see things in a different fashion, as we would tend to see those passages being fulfilled in a literal sense when Jesus returns toi earth...


You see the "living waters" in v.8 as some kind super plumbing arrangements during the millennial period? That's all that can be meant by taking verse 8 "literally".

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 3, 2016)

was speaking more towards Him setting foot on Mount of Olives again, and the earthquake being a real physical one!


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 3, 2016)

Your literalism is literally selective. Is there going to be a problem with the lighting during the millennium, too? (vv. 6-7)

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (Nov 3, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> And this would be an issue where A Mil and Pre Mils would see things in a different fashion, as we would tend to see those passages being fulfilled in a literal sense when Jesus returns toi earth...



Jesus hadn't come for the first time. The literal sense should make sense of the passage in its historical context. And it is theologically responsible to take note of the typical and prophetic imagery which Jesus has used to explain the significance of His coming into the world -- a significance for time and eternity.

The passage speaks of the geography of Israel being altered. That is an internal marker that figurative language is being used, as when Jesus speaks of the mountain being cast into the sea.

Other cataclysmic passages of the Old Testament clearly relate to the covenantal alterations which would take place with the coming of Jesus. E.g., Haggai's shaking as explained in Hebrews 12.


----------

