# Survey on Your Eschatology



## C. Matthew McMahon

What is your eschatological view. Just in terms of mainline views.

Choose your "closest" as a general view.


----------



## Daniel M.

Amillenialism here, though I am still searching the Scriptures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## reaganmarsh

amillennial, but optimistic -- Jesus reigns as King, now and forever!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Amillennial preterist but, that wasn't an option.


----------



## Ray

I'm not dead set on eschatology because I haven't studied this doctrine. But from listening to sermons and debates, I appreciate and lean towards Post-Millennial. Ive heard a few Ministers argue in the past that both the Continental Creeds 3FU and Westminster Confession of Faith teach Postmillennialism and it sounded pretty convincing.


----------



## Guido's Brother

Ray said:


> Ive heard a few Ministers argue in the past that both the Continental Creeds 3FU and Westminster Confession of Faith teach Postmillennialism and it sounded pretty convincing.



Maybe WCF, but TFU? Postmillennialism is an allowable view for those who confess the Three Forms of Unity, it's compatible, but it's not explicitly taught there. If anyone's saying that, it's just wishful thinking -- a little too much postmillennial optimism.


----------



## Ray

Guido's Brother said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ive heard a few Ministers argue in the past that both the Continental Creeds 3FU and Westminster Confession of Faith teach Postmillennialism and it sounded pretty convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe WCF, but TFU? Postmillennialism is an allowable view for those who confess the Three Forms of Unity, it's compatible, but it's not explicitly taught there. If anyone's saying that, it's just wishful thinking -- a little too much postmillennial optimism.
Click to expand...


One minister I recall is Dr. Nigel F. Lee who made that claim. I'll try to find the Podcast and send it to you.


----------



## Ray

Eschatology of Victory in the Continental Creeds by Dr. Nigel F. Lee
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72205125547


----------



## Guido's Brother

Ray said:


> Eschatology of Victory in the Continental Creeds by Dr. Nigel F. Lee
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72205125547



If he's arguing that the TFU are postmillennial, he's in a distinct minority. I've never read a commentary on the Belgic Confession, for example, which claims that the Confession's eschatological perspective is postmillennial. Besides, it would be anachronistic to apply a category like that to a Reformation-era document.


----------



## RamistThomist

Kind of historicist amil with a sort of postmillennial emphasis on missions where the "isles wait for his law."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Amillennial, modified idealist / eclectic per GK Beale, DE Johnson, Wm. Hendriksen, et al., with some additions of my own (see chapter, The Fate of Babylon). Of all the doctrinal-theological areas, eschatology is the only one still being developed and finalized.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

I'm Postmill but my position is a lot closer to Amill than it is Postmill Preterist so I chose Amill.


----------



## zsmcd

I am a recovering 'this is too confusing/I will never understand this/it does not really matter as long as Jesus is coming back again' -ist. 

Starting to study eschatology now and am leaning partial preterist/postmill, although there are still many bumps for me to smooth out in my head. So right now I will affirm a very _very_ optimistic amil.


----------



## Dachaser

That would be in all End time scenerios, Pre/Post/Amil!


----------



## Dachaser

Coming out of strict Dispensational teachings, have migrated from the 2 stage second coming view, ole pretrib rapture, to now the historical premil viewpoint, as held by Spurgeon!


----------



## Leslie

I'm premil, but unlike most, don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. I'm leaning toward believing in an Islamic (rather than Roman) antichrist.


----------



## johnny

Leslie said:


> I'm premil, but unlike most, don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. I'm leaning toward believing in an Islamic (rather than Roman) antichrist.



Is that Macarthur's position Mary? Does he also not believe in a pre trib rapture?


----------



## Dachaser

No, he holds strongly to it!


----------



## Dachaser

Historical pre Mil, went away from that Rapture...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I'd like to see a larger voting. We have literally thousands on the board. I'm just curious overall as to where the consensus of confessional Christians stand.


----------



## Ray

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I'd like to see a larger voting. We have literally thousands on the board. I'm just curious overall as to where the consensus of confessional Christians stand.


I understand your fustration with people not voting. When I asked for peoples top sermons only got a few responses.


----------



## Leslie

johnny said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm premil, but unlike most, don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. I'm leaning toward believing in an Islamic (rather than Roman) antichrist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Macarthur's position Mary? Does he also not believe in a pre trib rapture?
Click to expand...


I recall that he does believe in a pre-trib rapture. I earnestly hope that the pre-trib rapture folks are right and I'm wrong. MacArthur definitely believes in an Islamic antichrist. The Roman antichrist folks are rapidly becoming extinct.


----------



## Moses Costigan

i'm amillenialist

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser

The main problem with that viewpoint though seems to be that Jesus told the Jews that they would reject Him as true Messiah, and would accept another one coming in his own name. Going by their theology of Dispensational regarding end times, why would the Jews accept Muslim as their messaih?


----------



## Peairtach

Postmil. The amil position seems to lack "direction" within history.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## lynnie

arapahoepark said:


> Amillennial preterist but, that wasn't an option.



Yeah. You can think a lot of what Jesus talked about happened in AD 70, but also be amil....or postmil, or practically anything else but Dispensational.


----------



## lynnie

Leslie said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm premil, but unlike most, don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. I'm leaning toward believing in an Islamic (rather than Roman) antichrist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Macarthur's position Mary? Does he also not believe in a pre trib rapture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall that he does believe in a pre-trib rapture. I earnestly hope that the pre-trib rapture folks are right and I'm wrong. MacArthur definitely believes in an Islamic antichrist. The Roman antichrist folks are rapidly becoming extinct.
Click to expand...


No we aren't. The Pope has already clearly defined Allah, Jehovah, and Jesus as the same God. A merged Pope and Islamic final one man antiChrist is very much a possibility, if not indeed already reality. Time will tell.


----------



## Dachaser

I always tended to see the Church of Rome more akin to the False Prophet in Revelation... Worldwide religion church of end times...


----------



## Leslie

Muslims have an eschatology that resembles Christian eschatology turned on its head. Their coming messiah, called Mahdi, is a world ruler, similar in essence to beast # 1 of Revelation 13. Their Isa is the religious side-kick of the Mahdi, similar in essence to Beast #2 of Revelation 13. They also have a "bad guy" who opposes the Mahdi and Isa, one who will come claiming to be the Son of God who was crucified and risen from the dead. The essence of the two eschatologies is similar, but their good guys are our bad guys and vice versa. Joel Richardson's "The Islamic Antichrist" is a good summary.


----------



## Frosty

reaganmarsh said:


> amillennial, but optimistic -- Jesus reigns as King, now and forever!





Ditto


----------



## Edm

I voted. Postmil.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I can't, in good conscience, vote Potmil/ Preterist. I'm a postmil/Historicist. I align with the Divines over and against men like Gentry.


----------



## Peairtach

I'm not very preterist, but I think Revelation was probably written in the 60s AD and partly speaks to events in the first century, but some of Revelation 6-19 is still to be fulfilled in history. Christ opens and unveils the book of redemptive history which starts in the first century but doesn't end until the end of history. I suppose I'm historico-idealist eclectic (?)

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr. Bathiran Samuel

I'm Postmill...

Sent from my InFocus M260 using Tapatalk


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

What is the "deciding factor" that you believe, in your position (whatever position you have), that causes you to _hold _to your position. (i.e. why I am a Postmillennialist in two sentences, _etc_.)


----------



## Dachaser

I hold to an historical premil position regarding the Second Coming due to seeing prophecy being fulfilled in a more literal than symbolic sense in the scriptures as regarding Second Coming, as do not see this age as the Millinium promosed by God!


----------



## Dachaser

Why would theJewish people follow a Muslim leader though, and since the False prophetwill be religious side, why not him as strictly political ruler instead?


----------



## MW

I am amillennial in the sense of holding to a realised millennium in Christ, in accord with inaugurated eschatology and the two-age now/not-yet outlook of the New Testament. How else can all believers be called saints, citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and have the immediate expectation of glory after this life? I am postmillennial in holding to the biblical expectation of all nations coming to worship God and the kingdoms of the world becoming the kingdom of Christ. The prophetic outlook is tremendously optimistic, and there is no indication in the New Testament that this should be confined to a small remnant. God knows those who are His, but the church labours and prays according to the revealed will of God; eschatology should therefore take in more than an elect-reprobate paradigm, and should have a shaping influence on missions and world history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

MW said:


> I am amillennial in the sense of holding to a realised millennium in Christ, in accord with inaugurated eschatology and the two-age now/not-yet outlook of the New Testament. How else can all believers be called saints, citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and have the immediate expectation of glory after this life? I am postmillennial in holding to the biblical expectation of all nations coming to worship God and the kingdoms of the world becoming the kingdom of Christ. The prophetic outlook is tremendously optimistic, and there is no indication in the New Testament that this should be confined to a small remnant. God knows those who are His, but the church labours and prays according to the revealed will of God; eschatology should therefore take in more than an elect-reprobate paradigm, and should have a shaping influence on missions and world history.



I would more or less agree with you.


----------



## Peairtach

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> What is the "deciding factor" that you believe, in your position (whatever position you have), that causes you to _hold _to your position. (i.e. why I am a Postmillennialist in two sentences, _etc_.)


Because Daniel's stone/mountain, the Parable of the Leaven, etc, must be talking about an ongoing process > and there is no indication of any radical alteration in that process or that it can be launched into eternity. It is a gradual process in history commenced in the first century. Thus I am a post millennialist, although I believe that what Revelation 20 is speaking of, was commenced in the first century. So in one sense I'm a realised millennialist but I don't believe realised millennialism is static. The Church under Christ is making gradual but real progress against her enemies (e.g. I Corinthians 15:25) to make a display of all the manifestations of unbelief.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## arapahoepark

I am amillennial because, much like Rev. Winzer's reasons, we are in the Kingdom now and I see the 1000 years denoting that, not necessarily a golden age just the symbolic reign of Christ since His first coming. Riddlebarger helped me with that as I came out of dispensationalism 6 or so years ago.

I am a Preterist because I see all those (not second coming obviously) as being fulfilled in the 1st Century and that was is typically referred to as his second coming is from the book of Daniel where Christ ascends and not descends (at the time) to take His throne.


----------



## Peairtach

arapahoepark said:


> I am amillennial because, much like Rev. Winzer's reasons, we are in the Kingdom now and I see the 1000 years denoting that, not necessarily a golden age just the symbolic reign of Christ since His first coming. Riddlebarger helped me with that as I came out of dispensationalism 6 or so years ago.
> 
> I am a Preterist because I see all those (not second coming obviously) as being fulfilled in the 1st Century and that was is typically referred to as his second coming is from the book of Daniel where Christ ascends and not descends (at the time) to take His throne.


I'm probably not as preterist as you, being only "mildly so" but is this relationship, if we can call it that, between the events of the first century and the events at the end of history not there because there is a close relationship between Christ's Ascension and Second Coming (e.g. Acts 1:10-11)? In His Ascension He ascends in the clouds to His Father to receive and govern His kingdom. In His Second Advent He manifests and vindicates and consummates that kingdom rule before all of humanity. 

It is probably unwise for preterists to confuse the Ascension or the manifestations of Christ's rule in the first century e.g. Pentecostal, the end of the OT administration, etc, etc, with His Second Advent.

I don't think the events of the First Century typify His Second Advent, but along with many other blessings and other judgements of the last 2,000 years they are adumbrations of final judgment on the wicked and blessing on the just because Christ is ruling and building His kingdom in history and that is constantly in various ways anticipating the Eschaton.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sovereign Grace

Not firmly settled in any eschatological camp. Once was staunchly anil, but lean more towards Chiliasm now. And post-trib, too.


----------



## Andrew Matheny

I've recently come to the amillennial position, since it appears to be most consistent with words of Christ in Luke 17:20-21 and other scriptures elsewhere.

In regards to the other prophecies in Revelation, I haven't taken the time to study in-depth, but I am open to the position that many of the prophecies up to Revelation 20 may have already been fulfilled.


----------



## Dachaser

convicted1 said:


> Not firmly settled in any eschatological camp. Once was staunchly anil, but lean more towards Chiliasm now. And post-trib, too.


 Many of the early Church fathers held to a form of Chiliasm, but they hd no idea on any rapture, as that was not until 1830! I was once holding to premil/pre trib, now firmly historical premil!


----------



## Dachaser

Peairtach said:


> I'm probably not as preterist as you, being only "mildly so" but is this relationship, if we can call it that, between the events of the first century and the events at the end of history not there because there is a close relationship between Christ's Ascension and Second Coming (e.g. Acts 1:10-11)? In His Ascension He ascends in the clouds to His Father to receive and govern His kingdom. In His Second Advent He manifests and vindicates and consummates that kingdom rule before all of humanity.
> 
> It is probably unwise for preterists to confuse the Ascension or the manifestations of Christ's rule in the first century e.g. Pentecostal, the end of the OT administration, etc, etc, with His Second Advent.
> 
> I don't think the events of the First Century typify His Second Advent, but along with many other blessings and other judgements of the last 2,000 years they are adumbrations of final judgment on the wicked and blessing on the just because Christ is ruling and building His kingdom in history and that is constantly in various ways anticipating the Eschaton.



The Full Pretierist view has been seen as being heresy by the orthodox, as it denies Jesus' physical resurrection and ours, yet to come in a future Second Coming!


----------



## Peairtach

Dachaser said:


> The Full Pretierist view has been seen as being heresy by the orthodox, as it denies Jesus' physical resurrection and ours, yet to come in a future Second Coming!


Yes. You cannot be Reformed or evangelical and hold that utterly unbiblical lie and perverse interpretation of Scripture.

Better be a Dispensationalist with all their error than a heretical Hyper-preterist.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist

Peairtach said:


> Yes. You cannot be Reformed or evangelical and hold that utterly unbiblical lie and perverse interpretation of Scripture.
> 
> Better be a Dispensationalist with all their error than a heretical Hyper-preterist.
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk



Or even Nicene, Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or even Nestorian and hold that view.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Justified

ReformedReidian said:


> Or even Nicene, Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or even Nestorian and hold that view.


Exactly. Though many don't admit/realize it, the above don't belong in the same class as hyper-preterists.


----------



## Larry Lynch

Amillennial. Progressive Parallelism view for Revelation.


----------



## Dachaser

Larry Lynch said:


> Amillennial. Progressive Parallelism view for Revelation.


 Just curious as to what they view means?


----------



## Dachaser

Peairtach said:


> Yes. You cannot be Reformed or evangelical and hold that utterly unbiblical lie and perverse interpretation of Scripture.
> 
> Better be a Dispensationalist with all their error than a heretical Hyper-preterist.
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


 


ReformedReidian said:


> Or even Nicene, Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or even Nestorian and hold that view.


 
From what theological traditions did it arise out from, as had neverhear of it in Charasmatic/Dispensational days, much less now as a Baptist...


----------



## Dachaser

Dachaser said:


> Just curious as to what that view means?


 Edited post


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> From what theological traditions did it arise out from, as had neverhear of it in Charasmatic/Dispensational days, much less now as a Baptist...



If I recall correctly, one of the splinter Church of Christ groups, but it never gained denominational status. A scholar named Russell wrote a book on it, but it was never all that popular as a book. The people who are attracted to it are burned-out former Dispensationalists. It's basically a cult. The legendary Paul Manata brilliantly exposed it.

When you hurt your back playing golf and your buddies look at you and say, "you got a bum glorified body, didn't you?," you might be a hyper-preterist.

2. If after lusting after a Playboy Playmate you go and teach that we were definitively sanctified in 70 AD, you might be a hyper-preterist.

3. If you say you take the time texts seriously but you don't hold that 1 John was written at 11:00 p.m. on 69 AD since it says, "we know it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18), you might be a hyper-preterist.

4. If you say that people weren't regenerate until 70 AD but it was already not yet, and then you read passages which speak of the saints loving God and his law (which the unregenerate cannot do), you might be a hyper-preterist.

5. If you think 70 AD was the most important event in history, rather than the cross, you might be a hyper-preterist.

6. If you have Gnostic tendencies, you might be a hyper-preterist.

7. If you've never read Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Murray, Van Til, Vos, et al, you might be a hyper-preterist.

8. If you've read them, and the every other Christian position on the resurrection and the second advent, and you say they're all wrong and you're all correct, you might be a hyper-preterist.

9. If you think you're reformed and hold that God has elected a _certain number_ of people to everlasting life, but yet you think the earth will last forever with people entering into the city, for eternity, you might be a hyper-preterist.

10. If you have a blank look on your face, with glassy eyes, you might be a hyper-preterist.

11. If your family members need to hire people to "get you out," you might be a hyper-preterist.

12. If your position leads to the position that Jesus needed regeneration since he was resurrected, you might be a hyper-preterist.

13. If you get kicked out of every church you go to, you might be a hyper-preterist.

14. If your creed is that you have no creed, you might be a hyper-preterist.

15. If you say that "the end of ALL things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7) means ALL things, but the fulfillment of EVERY vision without delay (Ez. 12:21-28) does not mean EVERY vision, you might be a hyper-preterist.

16. If your teaching is gangrenous, you might be a hyper-preterist.

17. If you still take the lord's supper even though one reason it was to be taken was in order to "proclaim His death until He comes," you might be a hyper-preterist.

18. If you constantly bombard people with e-mails, you might be a hyper-preterist.

19. If your previous theological bents have been other heretical positions (i.e., the Church of Christ's), you might be a hyper-preterist.

20. If you make yourself feel better by saying, at one time people thought the reformers were heretics, you might be a hyper-preterist.

21. If your two favorite sayings are: (1)Reformed and always reforming and (2) sola scriptura, even though you misrepresent what those mean, you might be a hyper-preterist.

22. If you live in Florida, you might be a hyper-preterist.

23. If you're a fan of "New Covenant Theology," you might be a hyper-preterist.

24. If you think Jesus will kick it with Enoch and Elijah for eternity while the rest of us will float around as disembodied spirits after we phsyically die, you might be a hyper-preterist.

25. If you think that we'll still sin after we die since definitive sanctification has already occurred, you might be a hyper-preterist.

26. If you think that God will live in eternity with active sinners, forever, you might be a hyper-preterist.

27. If you have no education, you might be a hyper-preterist.

28. If you only focus on eschatology, you might be a hyper-preterist.

29. If you can't get off the milk and chew some meat, you might be a hyper-preterist.

30. If you deny Christ's full work of redemption (e.g., the phsyical He made good also needs redemption), you might be a hyper-preterist.

31. If you think that Don Preston "is the man" because he rambles off basic two-premiss syllogisms, you might be a hyper-preterist.

32. If this is the new heavens and earth and you have your glorified body, and upon realizing this if you're not depressed and feeling cheated, you might be a hyper-preterist.

33. If you've had to define what a Christian is and this definition lets just about any wacko into the camp, you might be a hyper-preterist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Never looked into it too deeply so I am not sure what category I would fall. I heard sermons from RC Sproul on the topic but I am not 100% convinced of his view. What category would RC Sproul be in?


----------



## OPC'n

Amil


----------



## TylerRay

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> What is the "deciding factor" that you believe, in your position (whatever position you have), that causes you to _hold _to your position. (i.e. why I am a Postmillennialist in two sentences, _etc_.)


I hold to an idealist reading of Revelation because it harmonizes well with the rest of New Testament doctrine, and because a historical-realist interpretation like that of historicists, preterists, and futurists necessitates a great deal of speculation.

I hold to an optimistic view of the progress of the church because of the OT prophets' teaching about the progressive nature of the Kingdom of God, and especially because of the prophecy of the establishment of the Christian religion (in the technical sense) in the various kingdoms of the earth.


----------



## johnny

My friend from up north once told me a story that once during a cyclone, his wife and himself ran to the neighbours house (after their house was destroyed) and then had to escape with their neighbours to another house (after that one blew down) and then all three families were forced to leave that house as well as it started to collapse.

I am currently residing in the optimistic Amill house and I'm hoping it will weather the storm.


----------



## Dachaser

OPC'n said:


> Amil


 
Believe that he is now a partial pretierist!


----------



## joebonni63

A Mill always and this will make a lot of people very upset but with what we have there is really only one understanding of the Bible others come from trying to make things fit in such a way because someone told them that. I think Reformed A Mill is the correct understanding of the Bible it's the easiest way to understand the Bible there are no hoops to jump through. I was brought up in a Pre Mill church and I used to laugh when we went through Revelation or Daniel because it really doesn't work but it's a great story to bring in new believers.


----------



## BG

Post mill

It is (I believe) the only logical and consistent position.
Is 11:9
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.


----------



## Dachaser

joebonni63 said:


> A Mill always and this will make a lot of people very upset but with what we have there is really only one understanding of the Bible others come from trying to make things fit in such a way because someone told them that. I think Reformed A Mill is the correct understanding of the Bible it's the easiest way to understand the Bible there are no hoops to jump through. I was brought up in a Pre Mill church and I used to laugh when we went through Revelation or Daniel because it really doesn't work but it's a great story to bring in new believers.


 
Think that several prominent Reformedwere also Historical PreMil...


----------



## joebonni63

Pre mill is kinda like a cult thing remember Calvin killed the leader at the time for pre mill belief


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

joebonni63 said:


> Pre mill is kinda like a cult thing remember Calvin killed the leader at the time for pre mill belief


Let's keep the ninth commandment in mind when making hyperbolic statements, especially with the history of the matter is being overlooked. For example, see here:
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-servetus-problem


----------



## honkytonkopenairpreacher

I'm Pre-Mil and Pre-Trib!


----------



## TylerRay

joebonni63 said:


> Pre mill is kinda like a cult thing remember Calvin killed the leader at the time for pre mill belief


Joseph,
The Premillennial view has long been an accepted position in Reformed Churches. Consider such men as Horatius & Andrew Bonar, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer. Do you really want to consign these servants of Christ to being cultists?

Further, Calvin didn't kill anyone--that is slander. Read up on the Servetus issue--there is a lot we can learn from it about the duties of Christians in general, of ministers of the Gospel, and of the civil magistrate toward heretics. Calvin displayed an amazing balance of grace, sternness, and righteousness in his dealings with Servetus.


----------



## JOwen

ReformedReidian said:


> Kind of historicist amil with a sort of postmillennial emphasis on missions where the "isles wait for his law."


Wow, that's me too! I thought I was the only one.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

honkytonkopenairpreacher said:


> I'm Pre-Mil and Pre-Trib!


So then your a Dispensationalist and therefore are not completely Reformed. A true reformed person is confessional, Calvinistic, and covenantal. To deny Covenant Theology is deny the Reformed tradition and the Confessions.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> Joseph,
> The Premillennial view has long been an accepted position in Reformed Churches. Consider such men as Horatius & Andrew Bonar, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer. Do you really want to consign these servants of Christ to being cultists?
> 
> Further, Calvin didn't kill anyone--that is slander. Read up on the Servetus issue--there is a lot we can learn from it about the duties of Christians in general, of ministers of the Gospel, and of the civil magistrate toward heretics. Calvin displayed an amazing balance of grace, sternness, and righteousness in his dealings with Servetus.



And anyway, Servetus, so justly executed, denied the Trinity--which was a crime even by the jus gentium

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Doulos McKenzie said:


> So then your a Dispensationalist and therefore are not completely Reformed. A true reformed person is confessional, Calvinistic, and covenantal. To deny Covenant Theology is deny the Reformed tradition and the Confessions.


 Dr MacArthur os also one who holds to same viewoints, as I did once, and think many Calvinistic Baptists would hold that also!


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Joseph,
> The Premillennial view has long been an accepted position in Reformed Churches. Consider such men as Horatius & Andrew Bonar, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer. Do you really want to consign these servants of Christ to being cultists?
> 
> Further, Calvin didn't kill anyone--that is slander. Read up on the Servetus issue--there is a lot we can learn from it about the duties of Christians in general, of ministers of the Gospel, and of the civil magistrate toward heretics. Calvin displayed an amazing balance of grace, sternness, and righteousness in his dealings with Servetus.


 
I have had spirited discussions with some who denied that historical premil wa acceptable as Reformed view, as they claimed contridicted 1689 Confession?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Dachaser said:


> Dr MacArthur os also one who holds to same viewoints, as I did once, and think many Calvinistic Baptists would hold that also!


But MacArthur is not reformed. He is simply a Calvinist. Being reformed is more that just believing the five points.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> I have had spirited discussions with some who denied that historical premil wa acceptable as Reformed view, as they claimed contridicted 1689 Confession?


Someone would have a hard time proving that any of the confessions exclude premillennialism. Dispensationalism is contrary to the Reformed confessions, but that is a different question.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> But MacArthur is not reformed. He is simply a Calvinist. Being reformed is more that just believing the five points.



That's not necessarily accurate. Being "Reformed" is definitely more than believing the doctrines of grace (i.e. the five points). But being a Calvinist is _also _more than believing the doctrines of grace.
Jochaim Westphal (1510-1574) was a Lutheran theologian who debated with Calvin in the 16th century. *He *coined the term "Calvinist" in writing back and forth to Calvin about the sacraments. Initially, it meant those who adhered to "Calvin's view of the _Lord's Supper_." That even today narrows things down quite a bit on those who hold to Calvin's sacramental view of the supper (which in my opinion he was right on). 
Later on "Calvinist" then was the accepted term for all those who held to the general body of teaching of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion." 
It never referred to just believing the doctrines of grace. Those who held to the _doctrines of grace _have a wonderful term applied to them through the ages, "_Christian_."
Limiting the term _Calvinist _to the 5 points is part of reconstructionist history, and the watering down of the contemporary "reformed" Christian culture.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

honkytonkopenairpreacher said:


> I'm Pre-Mil and Pre-Trib!


Can you elaborate on the pre-tribulation aspect you claim? What does that look like to you in light of Ch. 31-32 of the LBCF you claimed upon joining?


----------



## MW

TylerRay said:


> Someone would have a hard time proving that any of the confessions exclude premillennialism.



They don't exclude chiliasm per se, which was often stated in terms of Christ returning spiritually rather than physically, but as premillennialism specifically claims that Christ returns physically to this earth I would say that premillennialism is inconsistent with both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The clear doctrine of both is that Christ's exaltation in glory and headship over all things includes being seated at the right hand of the Father; furthermore, His coming again is essentially and sequentially connected with the resurrection, the judgment, and the appointment of each individual to either heaven or hell.

The Bonars were confessional and constitutional in the main, but it cannot be said that their adherence to premillennialism was confessional and constitutional. Their view can be likened to the day-age or gap theories, which were unchallenged on an official level.


----------



## honkytonkopenairpreacher

Ask Mr. Religion, in answer to your query, here is my take on the LBCF (Ch31/32) and eschatology. I am quoting verbatim from a letter entitled _Caveats, Comments, Concerns, Questions and Exceptions about the 1689 LBCF and Constitution of TRBC_ that I sent to the Elders at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church La Mirada, California when I applied for membership.

Chapters 31 & 32: I am in agreement with what is said. However I understand what is said to be the "bare bones" as it does not delve into specific details regarding the end times and eschatology beyond the minimum of what must be believed in order to be orthodox in the faith. That said, in the interest of full disclosure my understanding of the Scriptures leads to the dispensational pre-tribulational premillennial persuasion when it comes to eschatology. However I understand I COULD be wrong yet I do not view this as a "salvation pending" issue and it is my policy NOT to refuse fellowship with those who view these things differently as long as they affirm the "bare bones" set forth in these two chapters. There was a time in my walk when I would have made this a test of fellowship but that is not currently the case.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

honkytonkopenairpreacher said:


> Ask Mr. Religion, in answer to your query, here is my take on the LBCF (Ch31/32) and eschatology. I am quoting verbatim from a letter entitled _Caveats, Comments, Concerns, Questions and Exceptions about the 1689 LBCF and Constitution of TRBC_ that I sent to the Elders at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church La Mirada, California when I applied for membership.
> 
> Chapters 31 & 32: I am in agreement with what is said. However I understand what is said to be the "bare bones" as it does not delve into specific details regarding the end times and eschatology beyond the minimum of what must be believed in order to be orthodox in the faith. That said, in the interest of full disclosure my understanding of the Scriptures leads to the dispensational pre-tribulational premillennial persuasion when it comes to eschatology. However I understand I COULD be wrong yet I do not view this as a "salvation pending" issue and it is my policy NOT to refuse fellowship with those who view these things differently as long as they affirm the "bare bones" set forth in these two chapters. There was a time in my walk when I would have made this a test of fellowship but that is not currently the case.


Do you affirm or deny that there is one Covenant of Grace since the Fall under different administrations?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

MW said:


> ...but as premillennialism specifically claims that Christ returns physically to this earth I would say that premillennialism is inconsistent with both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.



So the problem here is not that Christ will physically return and dwell with men, but with the belief that Christ will physically return to our present fallen earth?


----------



## Dachaser

Doulos McKenzie said:


> But MacArthur is not reformed. He is simply a Calvinist. Being reformed is more that just believing the five points.


 That is why there are Reformed Baptists and Calvinistic Baptists, as Reformed ones hold to all that you described, while calvinistic ones tend to hold with mainly Reformed Sotierology, keeping Baptist views on Baptism, church government, personal convictions etc!


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Someone would have a hard time proving that any of the confessions exclude premillennialism. Dispensationalism is contrary to the Reformed confessions, but that is a different question.


 He just argued tha the Amil view was thespeciic one of the Confession!


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> They don't exclude chiliasm per se, which was often stated in terms of Christ returning spiritually rather than physically, but as premillennialism specifically claims that Christ returns physically to this earth I would say that premillennialism is inconsistent with both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The clear doctrine of both is that Christ's exaltation in glory and headship over all things includes being seated at the right hand of the Father; furthermore, His coming again is essentially and sequentially connected with the resurrection, the judgment, and the appointment of each individual to either heaven or hell.
> 
> The Bonars were confessional and constitutional in the main, but it cannot be said that their adherence to premillennialism was confessional and constitutional. Their view can be likened to the day-age or gap theories, which were unchallenged on an official level.


 That view is acceptable within the 1689 Baptist Confession though, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> That's not necessarily accurate. Being "Reformed" is definitely more than believing the doctrines of grace (i.e. the five points). But being a Calvinist is _also _more than believing the doctrines of grace.
> Jochaim Westphal (1510-1574) was a Lutheran theologian who debated with Calvin in the 16th century. *He *coined the term "Calvinist" in writing back and forth to Calvin about the sacraments. Initially, it meant those who adhered to "Calvin's view of the _Lord's Supper_." That even today narrows things down quite a bit on those who hold to Calvin's sacramental view of the supper (which in my opinion he was right on).
> Later on "Calvinist" then was the accepted term for all those who held to the general body of teaching of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion."
> It never referred to just believing the doctrines of grace. Those who held to the _doctrines of grace _have a wonderful term applied to them through the ages, "_Christian_."
> Limiting the term _Calvinist _to the 5 points is part of reconstructionist history, and the watering down of the contemporary "reformed" Christian culture.


 
There seems to be some overla[[ing within Christinaity, as there are Christians who hold with all Reformed Theology, such as Covenant/Confessions, others hold to main Sotierology view, s seen as calvinist, and others would be neither, but hold to God saving through sovereign act, like PB and Lutheryns!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> He just argued tha the Amil view was thespeciic one of the Confession!


@Dachaser 

Who exactly is the "He" in your post?


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> @Dachaser
> 
> Who exactly is the "He" in your post?


 
The other person that was interacting with on that discussion online...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> The other person that was interacting with on that discussion online...


@Dachaser 
Please identify "that discussion" in the context of this thread. Your post appears in the middle of things, so try to give the reader some contextual clues as to exactly who or what you are referring to when you post.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> @Dachaser
> Please identify "that discussion" in the context of this thread. Your post appears in the middle of things, so try to give the reader some contextual clues as to exactly who or what you are referring to when you post.


 I will remember to do that moving foward!


----------



## MW

Jeri Tanner said:


> So the problem here is not that Christ will physically return and dwell with men, but with the belief that Christ will physically return to our present fallen earth?



Yes. It is fundamental to the mediatorial dominion of the Messiah to sit at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool; and the last enemy is death, 1 Corinthians 15. His exaltation is above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named in this world and that which is to come, and this is necessary to His headship over all things for the church, Ephesians 1. For Him to return to this fallen world to complete His Messianic mission for a period of time would require Him to be made lower than the angels, which would mean He could not fully execute His mediatorial offices and bring many sons to glory, Hebrews 2. The book of Hebrews is explicit and repetitive on the point that Christ's session at the right hand of God is necessary for the fulfilment of all His offices as prophet, priest, and king. We are to hear Him who is greater than Moses and faithful as a Son over God's house; trust Him who as great high priest effectually ministers on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary and appears in the presence of God for us; and obey Him who as king of righteousness rules us from heaven and saves us because He is the right hand of the Most High.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

MW said:


> Yes. It is fundamental to the mediatorial dominion of the Messiah to sit at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool; and the last enemy is death, 1 Corinthians 15. His exaltation is above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named in this world and that which is to come, and this is necessary to His headship over all things for the church, Ephesians 1. For Him to return to this fallen world to complete His Messianic mission for a period of time would require Him to be made lower than the angels, which would mean He could not fully execute His mediatorial offices and bring many sons to glory, Hebrews 2. The book of Hebrews is explicit and repetitive on the point that Christ's session at the right hand of God is necessary for the fulfilment of all His offices as prophet, priest, and king. We are to hear Him who is greater than Moses and faithful as a Son over God's house; trust Him who as great high priest effectually ministers on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary and appears in the presence of God for us; and obey Him who as king of righteousness rules us from heaven and saves us because He is the right hand of the Most High.



Glorious! Thanks.


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> Yes. It is fundamental to the mediatorial dominion of the Messiah to sit at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool; and the last enemy is death, 1 Corinthians 15. His exaltation is above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named in this world and that which is to come, and this is necessary to His headship over all things for the church, Ephesians 1. For Him to return to this fallen world to complete His Messianic mission for a period of time would require Him to be made lower than the angels, which would mean He could not fully execute His mediatorial offices and bring many sons to glory, Hebrews 2. The book of Hebrews is explicit and repetitive on the point that Christ's session at the right hand of God is necessary for the fulfilment of all His offices as prophet, priest, and king. We are to hear Him who is greater than Moses and faithful as a Son over God's house; trust Him who as great high priest effectually ministers on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary and appears in the presence of God for us; and obey Him who as king of righteousness rules us from heaven and saves us because He is the right hand of the Most High.


 There is also the aspect of Him establishing his kingdom and domenion over all the Earth at His second coming, as there can still be an historical premil application, correct?


----------



## MW

Dachaser said:


> There is also the aspect of Him establishing his kingdom and domenion over all the Earth at His second coming, as there can still be an historical premil application, correct?



No; that is the carnal kingdom for which the Jews were seeking, and it caused them to stumble over the Stone laid in Zion. Many of the kingdom parables of Jesus directly refute the Jews' expectation of a carnal kingdom, and the apostle Paul especially drew attention to the present reality of Christ's mediatorial dominion over all things as the basis for Gentile inclusion in the benefits of the kingdom. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews is very clear that the "perfect" administration of grace and the present enjoyment of heavenly access depends upon Christ being seated at the right hand of God.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Peairtach

Dachaser said:


> There is also the aspect of Him establishing his kingdom and domenion over all the Earth at His second coming, as there can still be an historical premil application, correct?


How can Christ advance His kingdom any more by His Gospel after His glorious Second Advent? 

E.g. There is no more room for faith since it is swallowed up by sight. Has He got a second plan for advancing and building and completing His kingdom rather than through His Word, by His Spirit, through His Church and in His historical providence?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> No; that is the carnal kingdom for which the Jews were seeking, and it caused them to stumble over the Stone laid in Zion. Many of the kingdom parables of Jesus directly refute the Jews' expectation of a carnal kingdom, and the apostle Paul especially drew attention to the present reality of Christ's mediatorial dominion over all things as the basis for Gentile inclusion in the benefits of the kingdom. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews is very clear that the "perfect" administration of grace and the present enjoyment of heavenly access depends upon Christ being seated at the right hand of God.


 
The scriptures do also seem to indicate though that at His return, Jesus sets up the Millinual Kingdom here on Earth, to have literally His will done on earth as now is in Heaven! Just saying that I agree wth Spurgeon on ths issue!


----------



## Dachaser

Peairtach said:


> How can Christ advance His kingdom any more by His Gospel after His glorious Second Advent?
> 
> E.g. There is no more room for faith since it is swallowed up by sight. Has He got a second plan for advancing and building and completing His kingdom rather than through His Word, by His Spirit, through His Church and in His historical providence?
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


 Think that He sets it up here upon the earth then, and at the end of it, gives it all back to the Father as God will then be all in all!


----------



## Peairtach

I Corinthians 15:24-25. There is no change in Christ's reigning here. Christ is already reigning and putting His enemies under His feet currently and could have no more power to do so if He reigned from a dusty, cursed sin-tainted Jerusalem ( Matthew 28:18). 

Good men have held to historical premillenialism and good men have held to dispensational premillenialism, but the latter isn't Reformed and the former is probably not Confessional. I agree that this area of general eschatology of what happens between now and the end is a difficult area of Bible study and has got more muddied with the advent of dispensationalism causing confusion, but it should be relatively easy with some study for the Reformed to see that premillenialism is in error and that the choice is between amil or postmil or a relationship between the two In my humble opinion.

"Getting all your ducks in a row" on this isn't a matter of salvation narrowly construed but you have to ask basic questions about how you're studying this. E.g. come to conclusions about the non-apocalyptic passages before you look at the more difficult and symbolic apocalyptic passages.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## MW

Dachaser said:


> The scriptures do also seem to indicate though that at His return, Jesus sets up the Millinual Kingdom here on Earth, to have literally His will done on earth as now is in Heaven! Just saying that I agree wth Spurgeon on ths issue!



If you would like to have a discussion on the point you will need to do more than simply claim "Scripture seems to indicate" such, especially when so much scriptural teaching has been brought into the discussion which militates against the position you are claiming.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Peairtach said:


> I Corinthians 15:24-25. There is no change in Christ's reigning here. Christ is already reigning and putting His enemies under His feet currently and could have no more power to do so if He reigned from a dusty, cursed sin-tainted Jerusalem ( Matthew 28:18).
> 
> Good men have held to historical premillenialism and good men have held to dispensational premillenialism, but the latter isn't Reformed and the former is probably not Confessional. I agree that this area of general eschatology of what happens between now and the end is a difficult area of Bible study and has got more muddied with the advent of dispensationalism causing confusion, but it should be relatively easy with some study for the Reformed to see that premillenialism is in error and that the choice is between amil or postmil or a relationship between the two In my humble opinion.
> 
> "Getting all your ducks in a row" on this isn't a matter of salvation narrowly construed but you have to ask basic questions about how you're studying this. E.g. come to conclusions about the non-apocalyptic passages before you look at the more difficult and symbolic apocalyptic passages.
> 
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


Just curious as to how the Historical Premil viewpoint downgrades the truth of Jesus as Lord and ruler over all things now?As the Bible seems to indicate that the Lord will have His reign over all the Earth during Messianic Kingdom period, so why would that be against the Confesions or Reformed theology proper?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> The scriptures do also seem to indicate though that at His return, Jesus sets up the Millinual Kingdom here on Earth, to have literally His will done on earth as now is in Heaven! Just saying that I agree wth Spurgeon on ths issue!





Dachaser said:


> Think that He sets it up here upon the earth then, and at the end of it, gives it all back to the Father as God will then be all in all!


What is going on during this thousand year period you are claiming here? What events lead to its beginning? Lots of details are needed.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What is going on during this thousand year period you are claiming here? What events lead to its beginning? Lots of details are needed.


 The Lord Jesus has His second coming event, and the dead in Him have resurrected, as are also the living saints, and then ushered into the Kingdom here upon the Earth. All the nations here shall know and obey Jesus as the King, ansd there shall be like a paradise here, as curse undone on creation, Garden of Eden again here, and a state of no hunger/famine/ all get along together, as King Jesus rules with Hs iron rod. After that time, the Eternal State is then ushered in, with the New Jerusalem/new Heavens and Earth.


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> If you would like to have a discussion on the point you will need to do more than simply claim "Scripture seems to indicate" such, especially when so much scriptural teaching has been brought into the discussion which militates against the position you are claiming.


 I will try to do better here.
Revelation 20:1-4
Do you see the first and second resurrections as not really being a time period between the 2 of them, and is the first resurrection at the Second Coming or not?
Thanks


----------



## MW

Dachaser said:


> I will try to do better here.
> Revelation 20:1-4
> Do you see the first and second resurrections as not really being a time period between the 2 of them, and is the first resurrection at the Second Coming or not?
> Thanks



The first resurrection is the intermediate state where the soul goes to be with Christ and the body rests in the grave till the second resurrection. The second resurrection is the resurrection of the whole man when the soul shall be reunited with its body in an immortal condition. The binding of Satan is an essential element of the saints reigning with Christ after they are dead. It is because Christ has destroyed him that had the power of death, the devil, that he holds the keys of hell and of death and delivers those who were bound by the fear of death. If Satan were not bound believers would still be subject to the fear of death.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> I will try to do better here.
> Revelation 20:1-4
> Do you see the first and second resurrections as not really being a time period between the 2 of them, and is the first resurrection at the Second Coming or not?
> Thanks


It comes down to matters of interpretation and with Revelation, it is quite difficult. Unlike dispensationalists, the majority of people throughout church history and scholars today see the book not be taken so woodenly literal but, that its full of symbols. Heck, even Dispensationalists admit that the beasts of the earth and Sea are symbols! To push back against some objections of the view as allegorical, we must say that clearly John wanted his book to be interpreted symbolically for things that would soon take place. Not that we are some how trying to evade a 'literal' hermeneutic whatever that means.
Read Riddlebarger for a more in-depth view as to why the thousand years are to be symbolic/figurative.


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> The first resurrection is the intermediate state where the soul goes to be with Christ and the body rests in the grave till the second resurrection. The second resurrection is the resurrection of the whole man when the soul shall be reunited with its body in an immortal condition. The binding of Satan is an essential element of the saints reigning with Christ after they are dead. It is because Christ has destroyed him that had the power of death, the devil, that he holds the keys of hell and of death and delivers those who were bound by the fear of death. If Satan were not bound believers would still be subject to the fear of death.


 But dosn't the text state that the first one will be when we are glorified at His econd coming? And when yo say Satan is bound now, do you mean tht he is locked down, or that the Gospe he cannot stop, but is still free to influence and wreak lives?


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> It comes down to matters of interpretation and with Revelation, it is quite difficult. Unlike dispensationalists, the majority of people throughout church history and scholars today see the book not be taken so woodenly literal but, that its full of symbols. Heck, even Dispensationalists admit that the beasts of the earth and Sea are symbols! To push back against some objections of the view as allegorical, we must say that clearly John wanted his book to be interpreted symbolically for things that would soon take place. Not that we are some how trying to evade a 'literal' hermeneutic whatever that means.
> Read Riddlebarger for a more in-depth view as to why the thousand years are to be symbolic/figurative.


 
Does that view though affect the first resurrection as happening at time of the Second Coming ? As regardlless if symbolic or literal 1000 years, thepasage still seems to say 2 seperate physical resurrections, or am I undertanding it wrong?


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> Does that view though affect the first resurrection as happening at time of the Second Coming ? As regardlless if symbolic or literal 1000 years, thepasage still seems to say 2 seperate physical resurrections, or am I undertanding it wrong?


The amillennial view, typically, sees Revelation 19 and 20 as different camera angles of the same event. Akin to viewing in binoculars, two eyes to see in stereo. Why? Apocalyptic literature tends to do that plus there are many similarities between the two chapters. So what you would see as chronological with the thousand years they would not only a different telling of the second chapter, then followed by the Great White throne. The coming, judgment and resurrection are never treated as seperate events in the Gospels or Epistles.
I would be with Winzer on the first and second resurrections.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> The amillennial view, typically, sees Revelation 19 and 20 as different camera angles of the same event. Akin to viewing in binoculars, two eyes to see in stereo. Why? Apocalyptic literature tends to do that plus there are many similarities between the two chapters. So what you would see as chronological with the thousand years they would not only a different telling of the second chapter, then followed by the Great White throne. The coming, judgment and resurrection are never treated as seperate events in the Gospels or Epistles.
> I would be with Winzer on the first and second resurrections.


 
Never heard of that before, so those 2 chapters would really be looking at same events then?What about the view that the first resurrection refers to when one is born again, and second to time of glorification at Second Coming?


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> Never heard of that before, so those 2 chapters would really be looking at same events then?What about the view that the first resurrection refers to when one is born again, and second to time of glorification at Second Coming?


Yes.

And, it could refer to that.
Free ebook for you by a top notch NT scholar:
http://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-returning-king/


----------



## MW

Dachaser said:


> But dosn't the text state that the first one will be when we are glorified at His econd coming?



No, not at all. The reference is to the first coming of Jesus Christ in terms which are borrowed from the eschatological hope of the Old Testament concerning the kingdom of the saints.



Dachaser said:


> And when yo say Satan is bound now, do you mean tht he is locked down, or that the Gospe he cannot stop, but is still free to influence and wreak lives?



Under the Old Testament God suffered the nations to walk in their own ways and Satan operated under the permission of God as the deceiver of the nations. But now he has been cast out of heaven. Now God commands all men everywhere to repent. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the angel of the covenant, has bound Satan from deceiving the nations, and now proclaims the everlasting gospel in order to reap the harvest of the world before the day of judgment. On the other hand, there are those among the nations who reject and oppose the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and on these Satan is loosed to gather them for the great battle at the end of time; but it is one of the features of the book of Revelation that the battle itself never takes place. The King of kings and Lord of lords is so invincible that His foes cannot stand before Him.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

MW said:


> No, not at all. The reference is to the first coming of Jesus Christ in terms which are borrowed from the eschatological hope of the Old Testament concerning the kingdom of the saints.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Old Testament God suffered the nations to walk in their own ways and Satan operated under the permission of God as the deceiver of the nations. But now he has been cast out of heaven. Now God commands all men everywhere to repent. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the angel of the covenant, has bound Satan from deceiving the nations, and now proclaims the everlasting gospel in order to reap the harvest of the world before the day of judgment. On the other hand, there are those among the nations who reject and oppose the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and on these Satan is loosed to gather them for the great battle at the end of time; but it is one of the features of the book of Revelation that the battle itself never takes place. The King of kings and Lord of lords is so invincible that His foes cannot stand before Him.


 
So how would you explain then the last battle in the book between the lost und erSatan trying to take over the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom?


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Yes.
> 
> And, it could refer to that.
> Free ebook for you by a top notch NT scholar:
> http://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-returning-king/


 Thank you, I will be reading that book.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Yes.
> 
> And, it could refer to that.
> Free ebook for you by a top notch NT scholar:
> http://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-returning-king/


 Just compled reading that book, and now do see how the Reformed perspective can refer to first resurrection as not being the glorified one, but of when spiritual born again. Also do see how the Book of Revelation can support multiple meanngs as to it being any of those main 4 views onit, Still would tend to see a premil Second Coming event, but now have more to think upon! My thinking is that it does portry struggle between God and Satan since time of Christ, and that there have been may antichrists an othes trying to stop the church, but there will be a final struggle hat plays out here on the church by last and final person, and Jesus returnsto set up His Kingdom. I once held to a pre trib rapture, but now historical Premil.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Yes.
> 
> And, it could refer to that.
> Free ebook for you by a top notch NT scholar:
> http://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-returning-king/


 Based upon reading th, and other things, guess would now see myself as being a Covenant PreMil person.


----------



## MW

Dachaser said:


> So how would you explain then the last battle in the book between the lost und erSatan trying to take over the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom?



As noted, it never actually takes place within the Book. Just as with the Exodus, Pharaoh and his army pursue the Israelites but never overtake them; the horse and the rider are thrown into the sea. The reason why the book of Revelation brings mighty powers of opposition to our attention is to comfort us with the assured knowledge that such powers are doomed to failure.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## youthevang

Postmillennial Preterist


----------



## KGP

Ray said:


> I understand your fustration with people not voting. When I asked for peoples top sermons only got a few responses.



Ray! I saw that post a while back and wanted to respond but could not remember the tile or proper reference of the sermon. One came to mind right away; and I finally looked it up to get the reference. John McArthur on John 5:17-20 and Jesus statement 'My father is working until now, and I too am working.' http://www.gty.org/video/television/T8243-26


As for my eschatology; I am amillennial as it presents the fewest obstacles when putting the whole bible together.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KGP

Jerusalem Blade said:


> additions of my own (see chapter, The Fate of Babylon).



I recall your post some time ago now titled 'The church has not replaced Israel' and found it quite agreeable.

Also want to thank you for posting your book; I've read 20 pages so far and been edified. It has been an encouragement to me, I've been stressed tonight and a good redemption story has been effective medicine. I'll have it all read before long.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Kaleb!


----------



## Herald

honkytonkopenairpreacher said:


> Ask Mr. Religion, in answer to your query, here is my take on the LBCF (Ch31/32) and eschatology. I am quoting verbatim from a letter entitled _Caveats, Comments, Concerns, Questions and Exceptions about the 1689 LBCF and Constitution of TRBC_ that I sent to the Elders at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church La Mirada, California when I applied for membership.
> 
> Chapters 31 & 32: I am in agreement with what is said. However I understand what is said to be the "bare bones" as it does not delve into specific details regarding the end times and eschatology beyond the minimum of what must be believed in order to be orthodox in the faith. That said, in the interest of full disclosure my understanding of the Scriptures leads to the dispensational pre-tribulational premillennial persuasion when it comes to eschatology. However I understand I COULD be wrong yet I do not view this as a "salvation pending" issue and it is my policy NOT to refuse fellowship with those who view these things differently as long as they affirm the "bare bones" set forth in these two chapters. There was a time in my walk when I would have made this a test of fellowship but that is not currently the case.


Dale,

I certainly agree that one's eschatological position should not be made a test of fellowship, but I would strongly encourage you to keep studying on this issue. I'm a Baptist, and was decidedly Dispensational when I embraced the Doctrines of Grace nearly 20 years ago. I'm a graduate of a Dispensational Bible college in upstate New York, that was openly antagonistic towards "replacement theology" (as they termed it). As the years went by after my graduation my personal study lead me ever-so-closer to challenging a myriad of Dispensational presuppositions. The pivotal moment for me was when I left Synergism for Monergism. Once the first domino fell the chain reaction ensued. So, keep on studying. Keep on challenging.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## honkytonkopenairpreacher

Semper Fidelis said:


> Do you affirm or deny that there is one Covenant of Grace since the Fall under different administrations?


I affirm there is one underlying, foundational "Covenant of Grace" since the Fall under different administrations. It started in Genesis 3:15.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

What are these "under different administrations" as relates to the LBCF?


----------

