# Undecided on a Particular View of Eschatology



## Ivan

What are the implications of a Christian not coming to a particular view of eschatology? Said Christian believes in the orthodox faith, but is unsure about how the end of this world specifically takes place.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I used to say I was a pan-millennialist, knowing that Christ is coming again and it will all _pan_ out in the end. This was a tongue-in-cheek way of indicating that I was not settled in my eschatology. Kim Riddlebarger, I think, said that was a cop-out. Lol.


----------



## Scott1

From a non theologians perspective, I would say you need to differentiate between covenant theology and dispensationalism. They are very different ways of looking at the whole of Scripture.

Dispensationalism is going to look for different means of redemption at different times in history and a separate redemptive plan for people with some Jewish ancestry verses everyone else. This will get you to very different places interpreting the Old and New Testaments. It sees discontinuity and separation.

Covenant theology is going to see the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, pointed toward the redemptive work of Christ, by grace through faith, beginning through the covenant community of Israel and expanding to every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue, in accord with God's plan from the beginning. It sees continuity and unity in redemption.

The millennial view really springs from these (dispensationalism v covenant theology), rather than the reverse. The former is going to drive a (modern dispensational) premillennial view. The latter an amillennial, postmillennial or possibly historic premillennial one.

Once one understands covenant theology, there is no way one can hold the modern premillennial position.

One could hold covenant theology, but certainly not be clear on one of the other millennial views.

A very good book on this is Kim Riddlebarger's, A Case for Amillennialism.


----------



## Ivan

Okay, I was a bit cryptic. Yes, within a covenant theological content. Jim, I'm definitely a pan-millennialist and I'm not concerned about what Kim Riddlebarger might say about that. 

Some are *SO* sure about their millennialism. I can't see how anyone can be certain about much, except the rudiment of the subject: Christ will come again and all will be put right.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Ivan,

I _am_ one of those sure of my view, though it is a difficult area. I suppose the value of studying it is the tremendous implications and impact of getting it wrong on one’s life. For instance, if one holds to the premil view, we’ll expect to be raptured out before the serious tribulation starts (though there are views within the fold, such as mid-trib, and pre-wrath), and how one prepares one’s mind – and life – would be different than if one were postmil, expecting things to generally get better and the Christians in it for the long haul. For the postmil, one would see the secular culture as a field to be sown with the Word of God and spiritual labors with the expectation of that culture becoming “Christianized” and bearing at least outward observance of God’s Law. One would be devoting one’s life and energy to infusing the Mosaic Law into the political-legal arena, with the expectation of its becoming the law of the land.

For the amil, or one holding that the present age is the millennial period, we see that we are in a worsening world, with the main threats either intense worldly seduction from an increasingly antichristian culture, and/or persecution from hostile ruling authorities – with no hope of these things getting better, not in the long run, though there could be short-term improvements. We fight for justice for the downtrodden and speak for those with no voice, even though we go against the grain when we do it in Christ’s name. The focus for the amil is that we

“may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life...” (Philippians 2:15, 16)​
To the amil the Kingdom of God to be secured and sustained is the church, not the culture or the political arena, though one may speak to the culture, whether by Christian witness, works of art and literature, or works of mercy, calling those who love the truth out of the power of darkness and into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. Ditto with the political-legal arena – one may seek to influence those therein to uphold God’s agenda of righteousness and compassion, and to become disciples of Christ, but the amil does not desire build the Kingdom of God _in and of_ the worldly institutions of culture, law and politics.

To the amil the church is the manifestation of God’s Kingdom and rule in this world, and the House in which He lives. I suppose one’s eschatological view will seriously affect one’s attitude to the culture, politics, and the areas of one’s heartfelt labors. It will also affect one’s expectations of suffering-to-come, and preparing one’s mind and heart in that regard.

I do think that having a suspended judgment is wise till one is confident one has a sound view. And it does seem that John (or rather the Spirit of Christ through him) assumes we can understand His revelation to the churches, both then, and now, as the principles remain valid throughout the age:

“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Rev 1:3)​
There is a blessing to those who undertake to comprehend, and it is no small one, but _substantial_.


----------



## Ivan

I lost my post! That's one of the things I don't like about the new PB setup. Oh, well.

Great answer, Steve.

To be brief, dispensationalism is dangerous to society. Imagine having a President who takes it seriously. Makes me shudder.

Postmillennialism sounds like utopia to me, not based in reality. If it were true, then there must be a reformation, revival, renewal (whatever you want to call it) of the church of a gargantuan proportion. Regardless as to how the world is trending, look at the Church! 

The Amillennialism view makes much more sense to me. If I had to say what I am I'd say I'm amil.


----------



## Scott1

> *Ivan*
> The Amillennialism view makes much more sense to me. If I had to say what I am I'd say I'm amil.



It's been interesting to learn that the term "amillennialism" is not a historic term, it is of relatively recent use. It used to be what was broadly called "postmillenialism" and the two terms have many similarities.

Today, some blend the two.

GI Williamson said he can be called either an "optimistic amillennialist" or a "non-utopian postmillennialist."


----------



## Peairtach

Amils are postmils that have lost their nerve 

Both amil and postmil believe that Christ returns at the end of the Millennium. But postmils believe that the world is being progressively Christianised in the meantime.

Because certain postmil hopes, like the conversion of the Jews haven't happened yet, many postmils have turned to amil. They need more patience. Christ's work in history takes time. It's a slow gradual process and like personal sanctification it often appears to ebb aswell as flow E.g.:



> Then the LORD answered me and said: "Write the vision and make it plain on tablets, that he may run who reads it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time; but at the end it will speak, and it will not lie. Though it tarries, wait for it; because it will surely come, It will not tarry. Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith..................... Behold, is it not of the LORD of hosts that the peoples labour to feed the fire, and nations weary themselves in vain? For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea." (Habakkuk 2:2-4, 13-14, NKJV).


----------



## Ivan

Scott1 said:


> GI Williamson said he can be called either an "optimistic amillennialist" or a "non-utopian postmillennialist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could parse it in many ways.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amils are postmils that have lost their nerve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Richard, that takes a lot of nerve!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both amil and postmil believe that Christ returns at the end of the Millennium. But postmils believe that the world is being progressively Christianised in the meantime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it could happen, but not in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because certain postmil hopes, like the conversion of the Jews haven't happened yet, many postmils have turned to amil. They need more patience. Christ's work in history takes time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can appreciate that. I can tell you this, the Church better get in gear, at least in this generation, if it wants to be a part of what God is doing.
Click to expand...


----------



## nnatew24

I would agree that the differences between post- and Amill are not that significant, and maybe even not that important. But when you get to the differences between the two and premill, especially dispensational premillennial, the stakes are much higher. 

I like to call myself an optimal Amillennialist.  I certainly hope and pray that there is a mass conversion before Christ's return, but I do not see this taught in the text of scripture (our perception of current events is not a valid argument either way, in my opinion). But then again, I don't see any kind of national revival of the Jews taught in Romans 11, so there are probably some fundamental hermeneutical differences between me and a post-mill brother.

OT prophecy, as Richard cited above (Habakkuk etc.) is very tough to interpret. Does this speak of things before the King returns, or after the new heavens and the new earth? There's some tough questions, but I think that the fundamentals are easily discernible (and thus dispensational/premill can easily be shown as erroneous).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

> “Amils are postmils that have lost their nerve”



That seems to me just plain silliness.

I don’t much like the term “Christianise” (spelling in deference to the Brits). I knew a “Christianized” woman once. She gave outward observance to the commands and customs of the Faith, till they crossed her will, and then she threw them overboard. It is synonymous (in this usage) with “whitewashed”, and refers to those who for various reasons outwardly profess what they inwardly do not hold. One could say they are either hypocrites or deluded.

To imagine that the nations will become “Christianized” and the world will be in a “golden [some say silver] age” is ludicrous. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer 17:9). All who are not actually born again of God’s Spirit “walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience . . . and [are] by nature the children of wrath” (Eph 2:2, 3); in other words, the living dead, who, if they die in that condition, will be the undying damned. And _these_ constitute the citizens of the “golden age” of the postmillennialists? Whitewashed wicked on their “good” behavior?

One branch of the postmils, who aim to see the entire Law of Moses instituted as the legal code for the nations of “the golden age” – that includes the penal codes with their numerous death penalties – has given rise to an opposition that is determined to eradicate the Christian community _and_ their Law Book, the Bible. From the Babylon thread:

Which brings me, b) to a book I just started reading – speaking of vehement hatred for the Christian church, _and_ for the Christian Scriptures! – and that is Chris Hedges’, _American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America_. Very interesting! This guy, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, an award-winning NY Times reporter, grew up in a Presbyterian home, his father a minister, but in an uber-PCUSA-type liberality where the Bible was acknowledged to be only a writing of man (“not the literal word of God”), and when the son started at Colgate University, the father made him start a gay and lesbian organization to give support to that community in the school.

Hedges now loudly trumpets – with respect from the NYTimes and the American liberal intelligencia – that the Bible is filled with rank hate literature, manifesting throughout a hate and bigotry-promoting “God”. From an opening excerpt in the first chapter, “Faith”:



> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them . . . we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. –Karl Popper, _The Open Society and Its Enemies_, 1:263



One might think this was being written about militant Islam, but no, it is written about the evangelical Christian community, with an eye especially focused upon the Theonomy / Christian Reconstruction movement, as they are taken as the basic Christian paradigm affecting American society today. The above is just the opening salvo.

After railing against the conservative Protestant view of the Bible, Hedges says, 



> The book of Revelation, a crucial text for the radical Christian Right, appears to show Christ returning to earth at the head of an avenging army. It is one of the few places in the Bible where Christ is associated with violence. This bizarre book, omitted from some of the early canons and relegated to the back of the Bible by Martin Luther, may have been a way, as scholars contend, for the early Christians to cope with Roman persecution and their dreams of final triumph and glory. The book, however, paints a picture of a bloody battle between the forces of good and evil, Christ and the Antichrist, God and Satan, and the torment and utter destruction of all who do not follow the faith. In this vision, only the faithful will be allowed to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem. All others will disappear, cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15) . . . It is a story of God’s ruthless, terrifying and violent power unleashed on nonbelievers . . .
> 
> There is enough hatred, bigotry and lust for violence in the pages of the Bible to satisfy anyone bent on justifying cruelty and violence. (pp. 4, 5)



Hedges continues,



> Church leaders must denounce the biblical passages that champion apocalyptic violence . . . This literature in the biblical canon keeps alive the virus of hatred, whether dormant or active, and the possibility of apocalyptic terror in the name of God. And the steady refusal by churches to challenge the canonical authority of these passages means these churches share some of the blame. “Unless the churches, Protestant and Catholic alike, come together on this, they will continue to make it legitimate to believe in the end as a time when there will be no non-Christians or infidels,” theologian Richard Fenn wrote. “Silent complicity with apocalyptic rhetoric soon becomes collusion with plans for religiously inspired genocide.” (from Fenn’s, _Dreams of Glory: The Sources of Apocalyptic Terror_, p. 60).
> 
> As long as scripture, blessed and accepted by the church, teaches that at the end of time there will be a Day of Wrath and Christians will control the shattered remnants of a world cleansed through violence and war, as long as it teaches that all nonbelievers will be tormented, destroyed and banished to hell, it will be hard to thwart the message of radical apocalyptic preachers or assuage the fears of the Islamic world that Christians are calling for its annihilation. Those who embrace this dark conclusion to life can find it endorsed in scripture, whether it is tucked into the back pew rack of a liberal Unitarian church in Boston or a megachurch in Florida. The mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches, declining in numbers and influence, cannot hope to combat the hysteria and excitement roused by these prophets of doom until they repudiate the apocalyptic writings in scripture. (pp. 6, 7)



I initially purchased this book to get a take on how the secular world was viewing and critiquing the Theonomy / Christian Reconstruction movement (and its adherents in the Charismatic churches), as I am slowly working on a critique of my own. But I have come upon more than I bargained for: an intellectual, sociological, and legal groundwork – being laid in many different quarters – for the eventual marginalization and then criminalization of both us and our Law, the Law of God in the Old and New Testaments. This is not just a loose-cannon antichristian, but a Harvard-educated, respected journalist who has the ear and attention of many. Already the government is scrutinizing the “hard core” Christian community, and such books (there are more) inform their perceptions and strategies. Slowly we are being perceived as dangerous to the health and safety of society, and as laws are enacted against our Law, we shall – from loyalty to our King – become outlaws.​
The "apocalyptic violence" Hedges refers to is precisely the imposition of Mosaic Law, "Christian dominion", and the penalties for rebellion against these. He and others see the Christians as far more of a threat than Islam. In truth, the authentic Faith has been co-opted by a purportedly "spiritual" but actually political agenda.

When someone said recently (on another thread) that the postmil and the premil views “tended to be more literal and carnal” what they meant was that their “millenniums” would result in worldwide _material_ (and spiritual) blessings in this present age. In truth, the postmil view (of which Theonomy is a strain, many postmils _not_ holding to it) _is *far* removed_ from the amil, and in opposition to its basic tenet: the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, nor will it ever be. What happens _after_ the Day of Judgment will be on a new earth, in the eternal state.

The extreme sector of the postmil camp, by its writings, its widely publicized views, and its spread among some politically active and vociferous professing Christians, is going to bring down the wrath of the society upon us, and with good reason, for that sector sees the secular government and the pluralistic society as an evil to be eradicated, and they are increasingly being taken very seriously by critical thinkers, government agencies, and unbelievers, all of whom see a threat to their persons and their society of lethal dimensions. We shall be hated of all nations, *but not for the gospel, rather for a quasi-“Christian” dangerous political agenda!*

Endtimes views have immensely serious societal and political implications. The Dispensational view will embroil us in wars in the Mid East, and bring gross disrepute to the gospel of Christ in that region, and the extreme sector of the postmils will embroil us in violent domestic conflict and eventual criminalization. These things ought to be no-brainers, but certain apocalyptic views cancel out brainwork with their “dangerous enthusiasm”. The offense of the Gospel is enough, but to add manmade offenses . . . 

Let no one say I have no right to raise these issues – it’s my and my children's heads the repercussions are going to fall on!


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> To imagine that the nations will become “Christianized” and the world will be in a “golden [some say silver] age” is ludicrous.


 
Psalms 86:9, 10, "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone."

Revelation 15:4, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest."

Some observations:

1. The Scriptures manifest that Christ is the King of all the earth, the heir of all things. Nothing less than all nations is worthy of Him.

2. Our commission is straightforward -- teach all nations. In terms of labour, prayer, and hope, the church is to have nothing less than the harvest of the nations as its goal of witness.

3. Christianised nations are of the same nature as Christianised churches; yes, there are hypocrites in them; but it is for the Lord of the harvest to separate the tares from the wheat.

4. It sounds ludicrous to Christianise nations; but it sounds ludicrous to Christianise a sinner. God can and does do it. Abraham believed it when it looked less like a reality than it does now, Romans 4:17, 18. Let us believe in Him who quickeneth the dead and calleth those things which be not as though they were.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> To imagine that the nations will become “Christianized” and the world will be in a “golden [some say silver] age” is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalms 86:9, 10, "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone."
> 
> Revelation 15:4, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest."
Click to expand...


How would you respond to those who assert that the above verses refer to the New Heavens and New Earth rather than to events prior to Christ's return?


----------



## MW

austinww said:


> How would you respond to those who assert that the above verses refer to the New Heavens and New Earth rather than to events prior to Christ's return?


 
That their eschatology is so heavenly minded it is of no earthly good.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you respond to those who assert that the above verses refer to the New Heavens and New Earth rather than to events prior to Christ's return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That their eschatology is so heavenly minded it is of no earthly good.
Click to expand...

 
It would be of no earthly good for Christ to return, draw the nations to himself and teach them his ways, and be their shepherd forever in the new earth? 

I'm playing devil's advocate here because I genuinely don't know that I could give a satisfactory answer to this question. One of my roommates holds the position I mentioned above.


----------



## MW

austinww said:


> It would be of no earthly good for Christ to return, draw the nations to himself and teach them his ways, and be their shepherd forever in the new earth?


 
I thought your original question was from the amillennial view, but this expresses more of a premillennial perspective. The premillennial view does not understand the saving work of Christ. It humbles Christ and carnalises His kingdom. Christ sits at God's right hand until all His enemies are made His footstool. The Holy Spirit is the Advocate who dwells with us for ever. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ's kingdom increases without end.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be of no earthly good for Christ to return, draw the nations to himself and teach them his ways, and be their shepherd forever in the new earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your original question was from the amillennial view, but this expresses more of a premillennial perspective. The premillennial view does not understand the saving work of Christ. It humbles Christ and carnalises His kingdom. Christ sits at God's right hand until all His enemies are made His footstool. The Holy Spirit is the Advocate who dwells with us for ever. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ's kingdom increases without end.
Click to expand...


I was referring to the amillennial perspective. Does it demand, for consistency, that Christ's enemies become a footstool prior to his second advent, then?


----------



## Reformed Rush

austinww said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to the amillennial perspective. Does it demand, for consistency, that Christ's enemies become a footstool prior to his second advent, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ's enemies became His "footstool" at His first advent, due to His accomplishments on the cross. (Hebrews 2:14-15)
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve Curtis

How does the post-mil overcome 1) The ‘many’ as compared to the ‘few’: 

Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for *many*, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” 
(Luke 13:23-24) 

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are *many* who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are* few* who find it. 
(Matthew 7:13-14) 

And 2)The predicted expansion of evil and apostasy: 

Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 
(2 Timothy 3:12-13) 

...when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth? 
(Luke 18:8b)


----------



## MW

austinww said:


> I was referring to the amillennial perspective. Does it demand, for consistency, that Christ's enemies become a footstool prior to his second advent, then?



Sorry, I must have misunderstood the meaning of "draw."

From the amillennial perspective, yes, there would be no earthly good in simply speaking of these nations being gathered to Christ at His coming because an amillennial viewpoint incorporates an inaugurated eschatology. Such an eschatology teaches one great coming kingdom of the future that penetrates the present. If there is no present reality of this eschatological vision in history then there is no genuine penetration of the kingdom.

Yes, "he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death... And when all things shall be subdued under him, then shall the Son also be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all," 1 Cor. 15:25, 26, 28.


----------



## MW

Reformed Rush said:


> Christ's enemies became His "footstool" at His first advent, due to His accomplishments on the cross. (Hebrews 2:14-15)


 
Verse 8, "But now we see not yet all things put under him." Reformed eschatology accredits both the now and the not yet of biblical testimony.


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Rush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ's enemies became His "footstool" at His first advent, due to His accomplishments on the cross. (Hebrews 2:14-15)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verse 8, "But now we see not yet all things put under him." Reformed eschatology accredits both the now and the not yet of biblical testimony.
Click to expand...


You confuse what men "see" with what has been spiritually actualized and accomplished on the cross.

There is no "not yet" when it comes to the gospel truth that Jesus Christ has destroyed the powers of the devil and conquered death on behalf of His elect. (Hebrews 2:14, I Cor. 15:54-57)


----------



## MW

Reformed Rush said:


> There is no "not yet" when it comes to the gospel truth that Jesus Christ has destroyed the powers of the devil and conquered death on behalf of His elect. (Hebrews 2:14, I Cor. 15:54-57)


 
The Devil goes about as a lion seeking whom he may devour. Ths saints grow weak and sick and die. Any understanding of biblical eschatology must incorporate its own hope of realisation in the histories and lives of God's people.


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Rush said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "not yet" when it comes to the gospel truth that Jesus Christ has destroyed the powers of the devil and conquered death on behalf of His elect. (Hebrews 2:14, I Cor. 15:54-57)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Devil goes about as a lion seeking whom he may devour. Ths saints grow weak and sick and die. Any understanding of biblical eschatology must incorporate its own hope of realisation in the histories and lives of God's people.
Click to expand...


Do you deny that Jesus Christ destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, through His own death? (Hebrews 2:14)

Do you deny that through Jesus Christ, the elect sons of God have presently achieved victory over death? (I Cor. 15:57)


----------



## MW

Reformed Rush said:


> Do you deny that Jesus Christ destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, through His own death? (Hebrews 2:14)
> 
> Do you deny that through Jesus Christ, the elect sons of God have presently achieved victory over death? (I Cor. 15:57)


 
Of course not, but the simple distinction of de jure and de facto must not be overlooked. There is redemption accomplished and redemption applied. An eschatology of victory must not be interpreted gnostically so as to shut Christ out from history. He who said, My kingdom is not of this world, also said, For this cause came I unto this world; He who said, I have all power in heaven and earth, also said, Go ye into all the world. There is an historical realisation of that which is Christ's right by covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Rush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that Jesus Christ destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, through His own death? (Hebrews 2:14)
> 
> Do you deny that through Jesus Christ, the elect sons of God have presently achieved victory over death? (I Cor. 15:57)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but the simple distinction of de jure and de facto must not be overlooked. There is redemption accomplished and redemption applied. An eschatology of victory must not be interpreted gnostically so as to shut Christ out from history. He who said, My kingdom is not of this world, also said, For this cause came I unto this world; He who said, I have all power in heaven and earth, also said, Go ye into all the world. There is an historical realisation of that which is Christ's right by covenant.
Click to expand...


What you are saying, is that Christ's accomplishments on the cross are yet to be personally or historically realized and/or applied.

I disagree with your futuristic eschatology, and I decidedly reject your implication that my Amill view is in any way, "gnostic."


----------



## MW

Reformed Rush said:


> What you are saying, is that Christ's accomplishments on the cross are yet to be personally or historically realized and/or applied.
> 
> I disagree with your futuristic eschatology, and I decidedly reject your implication that my Amill view is in any way, "gnostic."


 
Reject it as you will, if what Christ has accomplished has no effect in space and time then all He has accomplished is a salvation of consciousness, which is gnostic. The Christian message proclaims Jesus Christ is Lord of the quick and the dead.


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Rush said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying, is that Christ's accomplishments on the cross are yet to be personally or historically realized and/or applied.
> 
> I disagree with your futuristic eschatology, and I decidedly reject your implication that my Amill view is in any way, "gnostic."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reject it as you will, if what Christ has accomplished has no effect in space and time then all He has accomplished is a salvation of consciousness, which is gnostic.
Click to expand...


Christ has accomplished and purchased, in the "fullness of time," as The divine and perfect Surety sent from God, the necessary salvation of His elect, born in all times, past as well as future.



> The Christian message proclaims Jesus Christ is Lord of the quick and the dead.




???


Yes?

Jesus Christ died for those elect of God already asleep in their graves, as well as for those living in His Day, as well as for all those who would follow in time after His incarnation and prior to His second coming.

???


----------



## MW

Reformed Rush said:


> Christ has accomplished and purchased, in the "fullness of time," as The divine and perfect Surety sent from God, the necessary salvation of His elect, born in all times, past as well as future.


 
And in time He applies that salvation so that individuals who were once rebels to this King of kings and Lord of lords are made personally and individually to bow before Him. Hence there is a realisation in history of His authority.


----------



## au5t1n

This argument is ridiculous. If one acknowledges that people today still die, then one must accept that, in spite of the fact that Christ has already conquered death on the cross, the full application of what has already been purchased (glorified resurrection) is yet future.


----------



## Manuel

armourbearer said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you respond to those who assert that the above verses refer to the New Heavens and New Earth rather than to events prior to Christ's return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That their eschatology is so heavenly minded it is of no earthly good.
Click to expand...

 I do believe that those passages refer to the New Heavens and the New Earth and I don't see why that would make me heavenly minded, please enlighten me.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Matthew!

Unusual being on the other side of the fence from you!

I suppose the word “Christianise” (the OED spells it with a z) should be defined. The dictionaries equate it with “convert to Christianity”, though the OED does give as an added definition, “To make Christian in character, to imbue with Christian principles or forms” which may be less than convert. Are you using it in the strict sense of “to convert”?

You said,



> Christianised nations are of the same nature as Christianised churches; yes, there are hypocrites in them; but it is for the Lord of the harvest to separate the tares from the wheat.



I suppose what you are saying, is that you are hoping for great conversions among the nations, and great numbers being added to the church. Your quoting Ps 86:9, 10 and Rev 15:4 seems to assume this worship of our King by all nations will take place in the present age. Though I do see Paul referring to the aion we are in as “this present evil world” (Gal 1:4), and John says, “the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 Jn 5:19). The Scripture speaks of only two ages, this world and the world to come (Matt 12:32). But somehow you make it turn into a good age / world, or posit a third and better age before the eternal state.

Matthew, you assert of amillennialists



> their eschatology is so heavenly minded it is of no earthly good.



and you buttress this view so:



> . . .because an amillennial viewpoint incorporates an inaugurated eschatology. Such an eschatology teaches one great coming kingdom of the future that penetrates the present. If there is no present reality of this eschatological vision in history then there is no genuine penetration of the kingdom.



Is there “no present reality of this eschatological vision in history”? I am working with the Lord to gather out of the world and into His church those whom He calls unto Himself. He is present in our midst as the great King. He is present as the High Priest over His temple, as the Husband to whom we are betrothed, and the Father of glory is our Abba, in whom we delight, and we in whom He delights. For love of Him, we are obedient to walk the gauntlet to Heaven through postmodern Babylon, and her prowling beasts.

The Kingdom we are present citizens of (Phil 3:20) was indeed inaugurated when the Lord sat on the throne of power and sent forth His Spirit into the church, and it will be consummated when He gives us our resurrection bodies and rejoices in us at the great wedding supper of the Lamb.

How can it be you say my vision of the kingdom is “so heavenly minded it is of no earthly good”? I seek to shepherd the flock through hostile territory, to bring them close to the Shepherd, to give them understanding of all things that pertain unto life and godliness. I seek to prepare them to suffer for His name’s sake, by knowing the present reality of His mighty name (Pr 18:10). The “powers of the world to come” (Heb 6:5) are in our midst, and how say you “there is no present reality of this eschatological vision in [our] history [and] no genuine penetration of the kingdom” in us? Although the Lamb reigns over all the earth, His saving power is in His house, and He calls out from it to the nations, to deliver those who love the truth “from the power of darkness” to translate them “into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col 1:13).

The present reality of the eschatological vision is great in the amil churches the world over.


----------



## Reformed Rush

austinww said:


> This argument is ridiculous. If one acknowledges that people today still die, then one must accept that, in spite of the fact that Christ has already conquered death on the cross, the full application of what has already been purchased (glorified resurrection) is yet future.



". . Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" John 11:26


----------



## au5t1n

Yes. Do you believe that Christ conquered only spiritual and not physical death? If so, then that is a gnostic position; however, I suspect you agree that Christ also conquered physical death on the cross, in which case you agree that this particular aspect of Christ's past accomplishment will reach a historical fulfillment in the future.


----------



## au5t1n

Oops, I did not notice that "Do you believe this?" was part of the quote. I thought you were asking me.


----------



## MW

Manuel said:


> I do believe that those passages refer to the New Heavens and the New Earth and I don't see why that would make me heavenly minded, please enlighten me.


 
It leaves one with a heavenly state which has no basis in history. Where did these "nations" come from? With just a little concern for the salvation historical use of this term it will be seen that it is impossible to relegate these visions to an idealised, heavenly state, which has no historical precursor.


----------



## MW

Hello Steve,



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Are you using it in the strict sense of “to convert”?



Yes; on the understanding that "convert" makes no reference to the internal condition but merely to the recognition of the claims of Christ. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> But somehow you make it turn into a good age / world, or posit a third and better age before the eternal state.



That is not true. I fully recognise that the final revelation of Jesus Christ is necessary for the perfect state (new heavens and new earth) to be created. What I maintain is that in this age the leaven of Christ's kingdom shall work its way through all things, in accord with the teaching of the Bible.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Matthew, you assert of amillennialists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their eschatology is so heavenly minded it is of no earthly good.
Click to expand...


That is being referenced out of context. I am an amillennialist. I made that statement of amillennialists who insist that the nations worshipping God must be deferred until the new heavens and the new earth, for which they have no basis in the Bible or in their own inaugurated eschatology.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Is there “no present reality of this eschatological vision in history”? I am working with the Lord to gather out of the world and into His church those whom He calls unto Himself. He is present in our midst as the great King. He is present as the High Priest over His temple, as the Husband to whom we are betrothed, and the Father of glory is our Abba, in whom we delight, and we in whom He delights. For love of Him, we are obedient to walk the gauntlet to Heaven through postmodern Babylon, and her prowling beasts.



But this is the Babylon which the Bible triumphantly declares will be fallen! I cannot allow that the work under my all Sovereign King must have present limitations which my King has nowhere established in the commission He has delivered to me.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew,

Thanks for your comments. Would you please explain to me how you view the end of this age with regard to the nations? I can see that there will be some out of all the nations worshipping the King, but I cannot see the majority of all in the nations giving worship from the heart.

You said above when I asked for your definition of "convert",



> ...the understanding that "convert" makes no reference to the internal condition but merely to the recognition of the claims of Christ. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord.



This would be the sense of Philippians 2:9-11:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​
Is this the same sense you see in Psalms 86:9, 10, "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone"?

I understand the passage in Philippians 2 as referring to the defeated acknowledgment of Christ's enemies as well as the joyous worship of His friends. Are you saying this of Ps 86 as well?

I am sincerely trying to understand you.

Do you see the majority of the people in the nations becoming born again believers toward the end? Do you see the fall of Babylon as occurring at the end of this age?

In concrete terms, how does your amillennial view differ from mine? (I gather you can discern mine from various posts I've made)?


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks for your comments. Would you please explain to me how you view the end of this age with regard to the nations? I can see that there will be some out of all the nations worshipping the King, but I cannot see the majority of all in the nations giving worship from the heart.



Here is a simple question -- why? What basis in holy Scripture does one have for this idea? I don't think amillennialists stop to ask this of themselves. But if the question is honestly faced I think it will lead to some surprising conclusions.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I understand the passage in Philippians 2 as referring to the defeated acknowledgment of Christ's enemies as well as the joyous worship His friends. Are you saying this of Ps 86 as well?



I affirm this from all the universalist passages of Scripture; and, I would maintain, there is no basis in the scriptural testimony for relegating this to a period after Christ's second coming.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Do you see the majority of the people in the nations becoming born again believers toward the end? Do you see the fall of Babylon as occurring at the end of this age?


 
As noted, I take "convert" or "worshipper" in the mere outward sense of acknowledging the Lordship of Christ. There is no need to search the heart as that is God's prerogative alone. The fall of Babylon has been occuring throughout the history of the church. We have seen it in the conversion of the Roman empire and in the reformation out of the holy Roman empire. There is no end to what God can do. Let's not limit the Holy One with our unbelief.


----------



## Manuel

armourbearer said:


> Manuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that those passages refer to the New Heavens and the New Earth and I don't see why that would make me heavenly minded, please enlighten me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It leaves one with a heavenly state which has no basis in history. Where did these "nations" come from? With just a little concern for the salvation historical use of this term it will be seen that it is impossible to relegate these visions to an idealised, heavenly state, which has no historical precursor.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand what you mean by a "heavenly state", do you perceive the new heavens and the new earth as a heavenly state? do you understand that there will be no nations in the new earth? If so, what does this mean?

Rev 21:24 And the *nations* of those who are saved will walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 
Rev 21:25 And its gates may not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there. 
Rev 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honor of *the nations* into it. 

Rev 22:2 In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of *the nations. *


----------



## MW

Manuel said:


> I still don't understand what you mean by a "heavenly state", do you perceive the new heavens and the new earth as a heavenly state? do you understand that there will be no nations in the new earth? If so, what does this mean?
> 
> Rev 21:24 And the *nations* of those who are saved will walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.
> Rev 21:25 And its gates may not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there.
> Rev 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honor of *the nations* into it.
> 
> Rev 22:2 In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of *the nations. *


 
By "heavenly state" I mean the state of believers at the consummation of all things. When Revelation describes that consummation it speaks in historical terms -- "they shall bring," "healing." The nations which exist at the consummation cannot therefore be newly created but must have existed in history.


----------



## Manuel

But the concept of an idealized heavenly state with nations newly created is in your mind, not in mine. When I read "For all nations shall come and worship before You," I see it as being ultimately fulfilled in the New Earth because in Revelation the only fulfillment we see of that is in the context of the New Jerusalem after it has descended on the New Earth. The nations, of course, are the nations that existed in history not newly created nations.


----------



## Bern

I've always thought that Luke 17:24 onwards (due to the reference to the days of Noah) implies that before the return of Christ most people will be opposed to God. I've always understood 2 Thessalonians to indicate apostacy before Christs return too, rather than the majority obeying Him.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Matthew,

You said, 



> The fall of Babylon has been occuring throughout the history of the church.



Well, the fall of those _respective earlier incarnations_ of Babylon, but Revelation does show us a final embodiment and final destruction of Babylon, never to rise again (Rev 18:21 ff.). This happens at the end of the age.

You said,



> Let's not limit the Holy One with our unbelief.



I would agree with that desire, though I take it He has spoken clearly concerning the nature of the Millennial period as regards the earth with its peoples and nations, and to agree with Him is, rather, _belief_.

As I indicated earlier, the Biblical view is this present age is an evil one (Gal 1:4), and the entire world lies under the power of wickedness (1 Jn 5:19). It is not getting better – not in the long run – but worsening. I do not see the NT writers saying otherwise; for instance, Paul exhorts us to

“be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life...” (Philippians 2:15, 16)​
He nowhere says it will get _less_ crooked or perverse, but rather,

"evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived . . . and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim 3:13, 12)​
The NT data, it appears to me, shows the basic character of this age will always be morally evil. Luke 16:8 shows that evil men are the “children of this world [or age]”. (The Greek word _aion_ means age (as a measure of time) and also world (as a spatial dimension), and could be translated world-age.) We are told by Paul in Rom 12:2 “not to be conformed to this world”, and in Mark 10:30 that disciples should expect persecution in this age, for “the god of this world[-age]” is Satan (2 Cor 4:4). Nor are we told that the character of this age will change for the better, not until all evil and sin are cleansed from it when the Lord returns. [Sam Waldron wrote a good book on these things for those new to eschatology: _The End Times Made Simple_ (⇐ link).] 

During the millennial period, when Satan is bound and restrained from deceiving the nations en mass to come against and destroy the church, he nonetheless is allowed to give power to the two beasts – antichristian government and antichristian deception – to war against the church (of course this power was given him by the Sovereign, as through these beasts judgments are meted against the idolaters of the earth, which judgments but try and purify the saints). As the seals, trumpets, and vials are poured out on the earth to warn and judge, the Lord Christ sits enthroned executing the decrees of God contained in the book of seven seals, for He is worthy. 

While He was among us He taught that we shall be hated of all nations (Matt 24:9-14), and hated of all men (Matt 10:22 / Mk 13:13 / Lk 21:17); for the word He has given us to proclaim, while it has power to call unto Him all who are His sheep, will earn us the hatred of the world (John 15:18-27), as when the Holy Spirit testifies through our witness, reproving the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, we shall reap tribulation to ourselves (John 16:1-11, 33), even as our Lord reaped it (John 15:18).

As I have stated earlier, more Christians have been killed in the 20th century than in all the previous centuries _combined_ since the NT church began. Will there be great conversions in the days to come? I think so – for there _have_ been and may yet again. Will the Jews have a massive conversion among them? I hope and desire so, for they are my people after the flesh, but I do not believe it is prophesied. The church may indeed prosper spiritually in the difficult times, and have many souls added unto her. We are not to be pessimistic, as you say.

While I see the world darken in its morals, philosophies, religions, cultures, _laws_, hatred of the true church, and while I see foul deception and errors pour into the churches, many yielding to the seductions of Babylonian goodies, with many falling away from the sound Faith, I also see the glory of the Lord filling His house by means of His Spirit and word, empowering His people to put away sin and stand true against the darkness of the world — yet holding forth the glorious Gospel of God to it.

Even as “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” are represented in His house (Rev 5:9; 7:9), we are the nations that shall praise Him into eternity. These nations praise Him now, and forever. We are the true humanity, the peoples of the age to come. When it is written that God so loved the world He sent His Son into it, it is understood that the world He loved were those who would believe in His Son and would come to Him, even so it is understood that the nations who praise Him from hearts of love are the nations of the redeemed.

It was not for nothing Jesus said _many_ go the way of destruction, and _few_ the way that leads to life (Matt 7:13, 14), and that _many_ are called, but _few_ chosen (Matt 20:16; 22:14). I have seen that true conversions are a rare thing in these days. May I nonetheless see the hand of God bring many to Himself in the days to come – this is my desire.

Matthew, I am loath to disagree with you in any matters, but for the sake of important truths I am compelled to do so here, for it will impact souls profoundly were I to paint for them and their children and grandchildren a rosy future, and have it turn to blood. Often the Lord said to us, Behold, I have told you before, that you be not offended. I prepare people to die and suffer – and not just those in danger of going back to the Islamic world, but Westerners also, including Brits and Americans. I believe our day to suffer for our King is coming.

[Edit on 3/8/10: Rather than bowing out prematurely, I'll continue in the discussion]

Steve


----------



## MW

Manuel said:


> When I read "For all nations shall come and worship before You," I see it as being ultimately fulfilled in the New Earth because in Revelation the only fulfillment we see of that is in the context of the New Jerusalem after it has descended on the New Earth. The nations, of course, are the nations that existed in history not newly created nations.


 
If these are not newly created nations, but historically existing nations, you have no time marker in the text for relegating the worshipping of the nations to the new heavens and new earth. You are simply choosing that time in your own wisdom. In fact you must overlook the text's own time marker -- "thy judgments are made manifest" -- in order to arrive at your own preferred chronology.


----------



## MW

Bern said:


> I've always thought that Luke 17:24 onwards (due to the reference to the days of Noah) implies that before the return of Christ most people will be opposed to God. I've always understood 2 Thessalonians to indicate apostacy before Christs return too, rather than the majority obeying Him.


 
2 Thessalonians claims that Wicked shall be destroyed. As Calvin comments, "Paul, however, intimates that Christ will in the meantime, by the rays which he will emit previously to his advent, put to flight the darkness in which Antichrist will reign, just as the sun, before he is seen by us, chases away the darkness of the night by the pouring forth of his rays."


----------



## Scott1

A few questions for those following the good discussion here, for Matthew or Steve or both:

1) Are we differentiating views that historically are all within amillennialism (not amill v postmill)?
2) Is it necessary in amillennialism to have a falling away where the devil is "unloosed" right before the Lord's return?
3) Can the different views within amillennialism rightly be described as "optimistic" and "pessimistic"?

Thanks both.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, the fall of those _respective earlier incarnations_ of Babylon, but Revelation does show us a final embodiment and final destruction of Babylon, never to rise again (Rev 18:21 ff.). This happens at the end of the age.



Of course there is no exegetical basis for saying "this happens at the end of the age."



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I would agree with that desire, though I take it He has spoken clearly concerning the nature of the Millennial period as regards the earth with its peoples and nations, and to agree with Him is, rather, _belief_.
> 
> As I indicated earlier, the Biblical view is this present age is an evil one (Gal 1:4), and the entire world lies under the power of wickedness (1 Jn 5:19).



The amillennial view incorporates an inaugurated eschatology -- one great coming kingdom of the future that has penetrated the present: "And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust," Romans 15:11, 12. We have every reason to "abound in hope through the power of the Holy Spirit," verse 13.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is not getting better – not in the long run – but worsening. I do not see the NT writers saying otherwise; for instance, Paul exhorts us to
> 
> “be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life...” (Philippians 2:15, 16)​



Before we shone our lights *in* the world, there was only darkness, thus indicating that the situation is better than it was.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> He nowhere says it will get _less_ crooked or perverse, but rather,
> 
> "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived . . . and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim 3:13, 12)​



Verse 14, "But continue thou" -- Timothy. He was referring to what would happen in the ministry of Timothy, not the lifetime of the world.

Steve, we should beware of reading the Scriptures through spectacles which have become smeared by perspiration and dirt from labouring in the heat of a wicked world. "Through our God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies."


----------



## MW

Scott1 said:


> 1) Are we differentiating views that historically are all within amillennialism (not amill v postmill)?
> 2) Is it necessary in amillennialism to have a falling away where the devil is "unloosed" right before the Lord's return?
> 3) Can the different views within amillennialism rightly be described as "optimistic" and "pessimistic"?


 
1. An amillennialist is one who holds to realised millennialism, that is, the millennium is present through the reign of Jesus Christ. A postmillennialist is technically one who holds the millennium is yet future, and takes Rev. 20 to refer to the resurrection of the saints in a golden period of successful Christianity. Technically, men like Warfield were amillennial, yet they held a belief in the success of the gospel on the basis of Christ's present reign. If we look at the conversion of the Roman Empire and the barbaric tribes, or at the reformation from Popery, we see the extent to which the gospel might prosper in any kingdom of this world at any stage of church history; and that is due to the fact that the kingdoms of this world presently belong to Christ.

2. No, there is no necessity for an end of history falling away. An apostasy is usually put forward on the basis of 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 20. But neither text, properly interpreted, can be taken to indicate an end of history apostasy. That described in 2 Thessalonians has already occurred. That described in Revelation 20 is a parallel vision to the millennium, and simply describes this present age from a perspective differing from the present triumph of the saints.

3. Yes, "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are good terms. It should be pointed out that pessimism was not a part of the original viewpoint, but has come to be incorporated with amillennialism as a result of premillennial influences.


----------



## tdowns

A very enjoyable and informative thread.


----------



## pilgrim2

Jerusalem Blade.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Just a question, Matthew: You said, "That [falling away] described in 2 Thessalonians has already occurred." When do you say this happened?

I'll likely interact with some of this material on the Babylon thread when I get a chance.


----------



## Manuel

armourbearer said:


> If these are not newly created nations, but historically existing nations, you have no time marker in the text for relegating the worshipping of the nations to the new heavens and new earth. You are simply choosing that time in your own wisdom. In fact you must overlook the text's own time marker -- "thy judgments are made manifest" -- in order to arrive at your own preferred chronology.


My own wisdom, as you call it is Rev 21:24.

Rev 21:24 By its light will the *nations* walk, and the kings of the earth *will bring their glory into it*, 

I don't have a preferred chronology and the time marker that I have is that only see the fulfillment of that prophecy in the context of the new Jerusalem, I don't see how the phrase "thy judgments are made manifest" is a time marker that changes that, but I'm no expert in eschatology.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Just a question, Matthew: You said, "That [falling away] described in 2 Thessalonians has already occurred." When do you say this happened?


 
After the close of the apostolic period.


----------



## MW

Manuel said:


> I don't have a preferred chronology and the time marker that I have is that only see the fulfillment of that prophecy in the context of the new Jerusalem, I don't see how the phrase "thy judgments are made manifest" is a time marker that changes that, but I'm no expert in eschatology.


 
Judgments made manifest are the divine judgments manifested on earthly nations. The text provides this as the reason why the nations shall come and worship before God.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I've had a change of heart about leaving this discussion as I said I would in post 44 -- and I left this note there: [Edit on 3/8/10: Rather than bowing out prematurely, I'll continue in the discussion].

So, Matthew, when I asked when the "falling away" in 2 Thess 2 occurred, you answered, "After the close of the apostolic period." Would you please be a little more specific? Thanks.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So, Matthew, when I asked when the "falling away" in 2 Thess 2 occurred, you answered, "After the close of the apostolic period." Would you please be a little more specific? Thanks.


 
Steve, let me clarify that I acknowledge an apostasy which takes place throughout the history of the church and is sometimes more and sometimes less apparent. But the text in 2 Thess. 2 specifically speaks of a falling away which is the result (1.) of forces already at work in the apostolic period, but (2.) would not come to proper manifestation until after the apostolic period. I believe the marks provided by the apostle undicate a unified, organised falling away. From my confessional perspective I see this apostasy finding historical expression in the Papacy. I don't demand a papal identification as the interpretation of the passage, but as the most plausible application of the passage.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for getting back to me on that last point, Matthew. 

As regards the language I use: I _never_ seek to “Christianize” an unbeliever – or a culture. The connotation of outward conformity with inward nonconformity to God’s word is too strong. If we use that in place of “convert” – meaning regeneration – I think we may mislead others as to our aims. To use “convert” in the same sense I object to with regard to “Christianize” is, I think, doing violence to the English language.

In post #25 you said,



> There is an historical realisation of that which is Christ's right by covenant.



There is a difference between something realized merely within history – within time and space – and something realized as an earthly (worldly) power, as in the difference between the spiritual community of the church and the worldly institution of the government, or culture of the land.

If you say that Christ’s right as Sovereign over Heaven and earth warrants His realizing control (from within, and actually) of the government and culture of a nation “by covenant”, what covenant are you talking of? Of course He is “the governor among the nations” (Ps 22:28) and “King of kings” (Rev 19:16), and He rules them (to accomplish His will) despite their continual rebellion against His Law and Person, but the Kingdom he is establishing is “not of this world” (John 18:36) though it be in it (John 17:14). He was very emphatic: “now is my kingdom not from hence [not from here]” (John 18:36).

The victory of Christ is that He has overcome the world – and we the church in Him likewise have – the victory being that the will of God in His kingdom is realized (manifest) in the world in the Body of Christ. 

Can this be what you label Gnosticism, and “shutting Christ out from history”, because we do not _intermingle_ with the world?

We are that spoken of by the Daniel the prophet, 

“...the God of heaven [shall] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” (Dan 2:44)​
Because we are a kingdom not of this world – but the inaugurated kingdom of Heaven as yet unconsummated (“already and not yet”) – we are labeled Gnostic? We are a potent force in the world while not _of_ it, for the Lord is mighty in His house. We are more than a “salvation of consciousness”, we are a kingdom of bodies and souls, we have voices that resound through the land calling the elect out of sin and satanic captivity into God’s power and care, we are a kingdom of those who give food, clothing, shelter to those without, we are a kingdom of those who testify of our King and love not our lives unto the death, our blood soaking the ground in holy service.

I said,



> ...Revelation does show us a final embodiment and final destruction of Babylon, never to rise again (Rev 18:21 ff.). This happens at the end of the age.



And you responded,



> Of course there is no exegetical basis for saying "this happens at the end of the age."



No doubt how one answers this will depend on how we identify “Babylon”. I have sought to elucidate this in the thread, “Thoughts on Babylon the Great in Revelation”, though you may disagree with the view I present. When you said earlier, “The fall of Babylon has been occuring throughout the history of the church”, I’m not sure what you are referring to. I do agree that while this is true (from my perspective as well), there is also a final fall.

However we precisely identify Babylon, I would say it is at the end because in Rev 16:17, when the seventh vial / bowl is poured out, a voice “from the throne [says], It is done.” Verses 18-21 picture the cataclysmic end of this age, and verse 19 specifically says, “...and great Babylon came into remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.” Now I do believe there is a brief interim between the destruction of Babylon and the final battle of the devil and the beasts against the Lamb and His people – how brief I wouldn’t venture to say, but still right at the end. I would be interested to hear your view.

Concerning “the apostasy” or “falling away”:

You said, 



> From my confessional perspective I see this apostasy finding historical expression in the Papacy. I don't demand a papal identification as the interpretation of the passage, but as the most plausible application of the passage.



I am a little unclear on something, Matthew. Is your exegetical basis confessional? But then you qualify that with, “I don’t demand a papal identification...”

I would agree that apostasies have occurred throughout history. But when Paul says to the Thessalonians that _this_ “man of sin” – “that Wicked” – is to be revealed, and is the one “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his _coming_” (2 Thess 2:8), this technical reference – “his coming”, the _Parousia_ – is to the Lord’s Second Coming in judgment and glory.

The papacy in the time of the Reformation was indeed a manifestation of the man of sin exalting himself in the temple of God, deceiving multitudes. The 1646 WCF 25.6 says,

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.​
At that time he was the man! And Scripture for them seemed to be fulfilled. But the American version of the WCF held to by the OPC and others ends that section with the words “ ...nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof.” So if your exegesis of 2 Thess 2:3-12 is confessionally driven, I surely won’t dissuade you. But, given the Parousia of the Lord hasn’t happened yet, we look for another final antitypical figure of whom the popes were but a type. And another apostasy that shall be massive (Kim Riddlebarger’s, _The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist_, is a good study of this topic).

Practically speaking, it could possibly look like this: There will arise a person who is a world leader, and who has a voice in the churches, that will attribute to himself qualities that require the full allegiance of all on the earth – at the same time speaking powerfully against the true God – and whoever will not give him this utter loyalty (whether it be coerced or not is no matter), shall be subject to government penalties, which will eventually be deemed capital. Many will fall away under such threat.

Vern Poythress has a good paper on the Idealist / Amil position, “2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism”. Poythress does identify himself as “optimistic”, as do I, although it depends on what one is optimistic concerning.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> To use “convert” in the same sense I object to with regard to “Christianize” is, I think, doing violence to the English language.



Words mean what they mean in context. In the context of changing from one religion to another, "convert" appears to me to be a suitable term.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> If you say that Christ’s right as Sovereign over Heaven and earth warrants His realizing control (from within, and actually) of the government and culture of a nation “by covenant”, what covenant are you talking of? Of course He is “the governor among the nations” (Ps 22:28) and “King of kings” (Rev 19:16), and He rules them (to accomplish His will) despite their continual rebellion against His Law and Person, but the Kingdom he is establishing is “not of this world” (John 18:36) though it be in it (John 17:14). He was very emphatic: “now is my kingdom not from hence [not from here]” (John 18:36).



That is correct, Christ's kingdom is not derived from earthly power. That does not forbid earthly power from recognising and bowing to the crown rights of Jesus. Surely we are not unbiblical in hoping that Agrippa would be more than almost persuaded to be a Christian. And if he had have become a Christian it is likely that all under his power would have been turned to Christianity as well, for that was the nature of the powers that be in those days. And should that have happened it would have been a partial fulfilment of the expectation you have quoted from Psalm 22:27, 28, "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD’S: and he is the governor among the nations." It is because Christ is king by right that He shall be acknowledged as king in fact.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Because we are a kingdom not of this world – but the inaugurated kingdom of Heaven as yet unconsummated (“already and not yet”) – we are labeled Gnostic? We are a potent force in the world while not _of_ it, for the Lord is mighty in His house. We are more than a “salvation of consciousness”, we are a kingdom of bodies and souls, we have voices that resound through the land calling the elect out of sin and satanic captivity into God’s power and care, we are a kingdom of those who give food, clothing, shelter to those without, we are a kingdom of those who testify of our King and love not our lives unto the death, our blood soaking the ground in holy service.



Steve, please try and keep my statements in their context. The statements about being Gnostic and holding to a salvation of consciousness was spoken to another person who was denying the application of salvation in time. I know you don't teach what he teaches, so the statements do not apply to you.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Now I do believe there is a brief interim between the destruction of Babylon and the final battle of the devil and the beasts against the Lamb and His people – how brief I wouldn’t venture to say, but still right at the end. I would be interested to hear your view.



Is your view perhaps a leftover from a futurist approach to Revelation? In biblical theology "Babylon" is the seat of human opposition to God. The people of God must be always coming out from amongst her in order to avoid being partaker of her sins and plagues. And the final battle is the very battle which all the saints have been fighting through the ages, the battle that we ourselves are fighting against principalities and powers. One thing is certain, giving up the world to these anti-Christian forces is to abdicate our responsibility to fight the good fight of faith.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I am a little unclear on something, Matthew. Is your exegetical basis confessional? But then you qualify that with, “I don’t demand a papal identification...”



I distinguished between the interpretation of the passage and the application of it in terms of historical identification. The passage does not name who it is referring to, so any identification is by nature a matter of application.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I would agree that apostasies have occurred throughout history. But when Paul says to the Thessalonians that _this_ “man of sin” – “that Wicked” – is to be revealed, and is the one “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his _coming_” (2 Thess 2:8), this technical reference – “his coming”, the _Parousia_ – is to the Lord’s Second Coming in judgment and glory.



The passage does not say the destruction is by means of his coming, but with the spirit of his mouth and the brightness of his coming. It is clearly not a reference to the physical return of Christ.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> At that time he was the man! And Scripture for them seemed to be fulfilled. But the American version of the WCF held to by the OPC and others ends that section with the words “ ...nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof.” So if your exegesis of 2 Thess 2:3-12 is confessionally driven, I surely won’t dissuade you. But, given the Parousia of the Lord hasn’t happened yet, we look for another final antitypical figure of whom the popes were but a type. And another apostasy that shall be massive (Kim Riddlebarger’s, _The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist_, is a good study of this topic).



This is quite confused. Why can't the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof? Beause his claim is of the very nature of that which is spoken in 2 Thess. 2. If 2 Thess. 2 has found historical expression in the Papacy, as you allege was true for the time when the Confession was written, then we do not now look for another. We look instead for the historical destruction of the Papacy.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew, I keep bringing up your use of the words “convert” and “Christianise” as they are pertinent. I do accept your definition – meaning I understand it – but do not agree to its validity in _Biblical_ usage. You have said,



> I take "convert" or "worshipper" in the mere outward sense of acknowledging the Lordship of Christ. There is no need to search the heart as that is God's prerogative alone. (Post #39)
> 
> …"convert" makes no reference to the internal condition but merely to the recognition of the claims of Christ. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord. (Post #37)



In the NT the Greek word usually used for convert is _epistrepho_, as in Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out...”, or James 5:20, “... he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death...”, or _epistrophe_ in Acts 15:3, when Paul and Barnabus passed through Phenice and Samaria “declaring the conversion of the Gentiles... they caused great joy unto all the brethren.”

Our Bible word for convert – _epistrepho_ – is also used in the phrase “to turn”, as in Acts 26:18 where Jesus sends Paul to the Gentiles, “To open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins...” and in verse 20, when Paul did go to the Gentiles to show them “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”

Now my point for seeming to belabor this matter is that I do not see in the Scripture where “convert” (your synonym for “Christianise”), is _ever_ used in the “mere outward sense” of making “no reference to the internal condition” of the heart, the mere profession of being a Christian as seen “in the conversion of the Roman empire” (your Post #39). I would not call the “official” pronouncement of “Christianity is legitimate” under Constantine as constituting the “conversion of the Roman empire”. No doubt _many_ called themselves Christian as it was the way to favor in the eyes of the authorities, but this is not equal to the Bible use of the words “convert” or “worshipper”. I know God alone discerns the heart, but we also are to discern whether a profession of faith is credible before opening the Kingdom of Heaven to the professor.

So, when you say,



> Surely we are not unbiblical in hoping that Agrippa would be more than almost persuaded to be a Christian. And if he had have become a Christian it is likely that all under his power would have been turned to Christianity as well, for that was the nature of the powers that be in those days...



were I an overseer of the church in his area in that day, I would consider the profession of each soul desiring to join the people of God. And if they failed to convince me, I would not turn them away, but would seek to instruct, warn, and re-examine them concerning the holy service they are thinking to enter before allowing Baptism and entrance into the holy community. Do you see this approach as wrong? 

I think we have different paradigms – come from different schools of interpretation – as to the nature of the Kingdom in this world, and as to the fulfillment of certain prophecies. I own you far more learned in theology than I, yet I cannot yield the rudiments I hold as sound to a view I cannot reconcile with the Biblical data.

For example, you said,



> If 2 Thess. 2 has found historical expression in the Papacy, as you allege was true for the time when the Confession was written, then we do not now look for another.



But if the Pope at the time of the writing of the WCF was _typical_ of the man if sin, but not the _antitype itself_ spoken of in 2 Thess 2, what is confusing about that? As Antiochus IV was typical of an abomination in the temple to appear in the 1st century, why may not the Pope also be typical – and please note, a good number of amil expositors hold that there are _multiple_ appearances of that type – of one yet to come, the final man of sin, the _final_ abomination in the temple? As there are multiple embodiments of Babylon, and many prefiguring types of antichrist, there are multiple prefiguring types of the one who defiles the temple. At any rate, that is how the school I hold to sees it. 

I repeat the words of Geerhardus Vos (and keep them in mind for myself also!),

[The prophecy of Antichrist] “belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (_The Pauline Eschatology_, p. 133)​
As we see developments in the current times we may have insight into Biblical prophecies, and I don’t mean reading newspaper events into the Bible! In the days of Antiochus IV discerning Jews could see and be comforted that his terrible persecution would be short-lived – all from discerning and applying things foretold to their present day.

On what basis do you say of _parousia_ in 2 Thess 2:8, “It is clearly not a reference to the physical return of Christ”? I don’t follow you.

And there are indeed legitimate “futurist” elements to the NT prophecies, that is, certain things which have not yet come to pass. It is so with Babylon. And Armageddon. Babylon is, as you say, “the seat of human opposition to God”, but I think the Biblical focus is more precise and detailed. Chaldean Babylon, Tyre, Rome were each distinct incarnations of the Babylonian spirit, and each fell; it does seem clear (according to the paradigm of my school) that there shall come another distinct incarnation of the Babylonian system, like unto these previous regimes, but a greater and final one. And Armageddon, it does seem there will be a final battle of the hostile world system, headed by Satan after his release for “a little season” (Rev 20:3), against the “camp of the saints” (Rev 20:9), which battle is also spoken of in Rev 19; 17:14; 16:13, 14, 16; and in 11:7 ff. There is a consensus regarding this view from able expositors such as Beale, Johnson, Hendriksen, Poythress, Riddlebarger, Hoekema, Waldron, et al.

I would be interested if you gave in a nutshell form what your view is, and what commentators you see as presenting the view you hold to. I see these things as profoundly – crucially! – important, for they involve things that are impacting our world, and will affect the people of God greatly. I see the church as triumphing, both in outreach to the nations, and in overcoming sin, Satan, and the world, with Christ's glory shining in the midst of the House of God and into the dark world. Those whom He effectually calls will come to his light, and those who hate the light will seek to extinguish it. But we will be victorious even as our Lord was: through suffering and the cross He triumphed over death, and inaugurated the new creation. 

The nations comprised of the redeemed worship Him over all the earth, now and into eternity.

I won’t be able to continue till next week, due to pressing duties.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Now my point for seeming to belabor this matter is that I do not see in the Scripture where “convert” (your synonym for “Christianise”), is _ever_ used in the “mere outward sense” of making “no reference to the internal condition” of the heart, the mere profession of being a Christian as seen “in the conversion of the Roman empire” (your Post #39). I would not call the “official” pronouncement of “Christianity is legitimate” under Constantine as constituting the “conversion of the Roman empire”. No doubt _many_ called themselves Christian as it was the way to favor in the eyes of the authorities, but this is not equal to the Bible use of the words “convert” or “worshipper”. I know God alone discerns the heart, but we also are to discern whether a profession of faith is credible before opening the Kingdom of Heaven to the professor.



Psalm 22:27, "All the ends of the world shall remember and *turn* unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."

Psalm 18:44, "the strangers shall submit themselves unto me." Gill: "as in the margin of some Bibles, to 'yield a feigned obedience;' see Ps. 66:3. There seems to be an allusion to the conquest of nations, some of the inhabitants of which readily and heartily submit, but others only feignedly, and through fear, and the force of superior power they cannot withstand."

Psalm 66:3, "Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee." Gill: in a lying, flattering, and deceitful manner, as the word [Hebrew] here used signifies... It will be a forced, and not a free, confession and submission; Christ’s enemies, whether they will or not, will be obliged to own that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."



Jerusalem Blade said:


> were I an overseer of the church in his area in that day, I would consider the profession of each soul desiring to join the people of God. And if they failed to convince me, I would not turn them away, but would seek to instruct, warn, and re-examine them concerning the holy service they are thinking to enter before allowing Baptism and entrance into the holy community. Do you see this approach as wrong?



It is perfectly legitimate; but this has nothing to do with the conversion of the nation. Only 10% of a nation might come for baptism, but the nation itself would be converted where its rulers acknowledge the sovereign claims of Christ as the prince of the kings of the earth and legislate in subjection to God's law.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> But if the Pope at the time of the writing of the WCF was _typical_ of the man if sin, but not the _antitype itself_ spoken of in 2 Thess 2, what is confusing about that?



Those who study "types" tell us that they must not only bear a resemblance to the antitype but must also be of divine appointment. Here you have a "type" looking back at the biblical text and foreshadowing something yet future. This is confusing, to say the least.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> On what basis do you say of _parousia_ in 2 Thess 2:8, “It is clearly not a reference to the physical return of Christ”? I don’t follow you.



The NT nowhere leads us to believe that the return of Christ shall be non-physical; but 2 Thess. 2 speaks of His coming as non-physical; therefore it cannot be referring to the return of Christ.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> And there are indeed legitimate “futurist” elements to the NT prophecies, that is, certain things which have not yet come to pass. It is so with Babylon. And Armageddon. Babylon is, as you say, “the seat of human opposition to God”, but I think the Biblical focus is more precise and detailed. Chaldean Babylon, Tyre, Rome were each distinct incarnations of the Babylonian spirit, and each fell; it does seem clear (according to the paradigm of my school) that there shall come another distinct incarnation of the Babylonian system, like unto these previous regimes, but a greater and final one. And Armageddon, it does seem there will be a final battle of the hostile world system, headed by Satan after his release for “a little season” (Rev 20:3), against the “camp of the saints” (Rev 20:9), which battle is also spoken of in Rev 19; 17:14; 16:13, 14, 16; and in 11:7 ff. There is a consensus regarding this view from able expositors such as Beale, Johnson, Hendriksen, Poythress, Riddlebarger, Hoekema, Waldron, et al.



Whatever consensus exists amongst these scholars, the fact is, if the idealistic interpretation is accepted, we must see all forms of organised human opposition to God in terms of "Babylon," come out from amongst them, and expect the ultimate fall of such. While there are some historical manifestations that are more pronounced, the idealist interpretation is not futurist and does not look for a specific end of time manifestation; so it is a matter of either being idealist or futurist.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I would be interested if you gave in a nutshell form what your view is, and what commentators you see as presenting the view you hold to.


 
I can't really point to specific commentators holding my views, but to different commentators suggesting what I consider to be the correct interpretation. On Revelation, William Milligan presents an excellent idealist commentary which I mostly follow. Some good reformed suggestions are also to be found in Hoeksema and Rushdoony. Hoeksema tends to be a little historically negative, and Rushdoony tends to be a little too socio-political; but their insights are helpful in terms of filling in missing pieces not covered by Milligan. I am also happy to receive any insights from past or present writers which exegete the text after a consistent idealist pattern or who may provide historical examples where the principles of Revelation can be seen at work. My view, in a nutshell, is idealist (but also acknowledging historical application), amillenialist (i.e., realised millennialism), and optimistic with regard to the kingdom of Christ leavening this world.


----------



## CNJ

Love trying to follow this thread. 

Matthew, Armourbearer, writes above:


> My view, in a nutshell, is idealist (but also acknowledging historical application), amillenialist (i.e., realised millennialism), and optimistic with regard to the kingdom of Christ leavening this world.



Steve, Jerusalem Blade, what is your view in a nutshell? 

Pastor Ivan in Wisconsin, are you getting your questions answered here or have Jerusalem Blade in Cyprus and Armourbearer in Australia hijacked the discussion?

I first started following this thread because I thought that Pastor Ivan in Wisconsin was trying to decide between post and amil, as I am. Now I find that amils have a friendly debate also. 

My eschatology blog: Millennial Dreams. Go to this blog if you wish to help me decide. Thanks, gentlemen. I also put a humorous ditty about eschatology, "Millennial Dreaming", as my first blog on PB. 

Alas,  I may not have a viewpoint until I get to Heaven when a lot of questions will be answered!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Carol,

When I return to the thread in the beginning of the week I’ll give you my view “in a nutshell”.

With regard to your thought of our possibly having hijacked Pastor Ivan’s thread, I think it likely edifying to him and others to see the nuances of the amil positions demonstrated, to the end of making well-informed choices – notably the differences between a confessionally-driven view (per the 1646 WCF) and a modern view held by those who hold to the current OPC edition of the Standards . . . . if indeed I have characterized Rev. Winzer’s and my views correctly.


----------



## OPC'n

Ivan said:


> What are the implications of a Christian not coming to a particular view of eschatology? Said Christian believes in the orthodox faith, but is unsure about how the end of this world specifically takes place.


 
Well, I guess you'll find out in then end that amil's were right but you'll be ok anyway.....we'll all let you in without putting up too much of a fuss.


----------



## Ivan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Carol,
> 
> When I return to the thread in the beginning of the week I’ll give you my view “in a nutshell”.
> 
> With regard to your thought of our possibly having hijacked Pastor Ivan’s thread, I think it likely edifying to him and others to see the nuances of the amil positions demonstrated, to the end of making well-informed choices – notably the differences between a confessionally-driven view (per the 1646 WCF) and a modern view held by those who hold to the current OPC edition of the Standards . . . . if indeed I have characterized Rev. Winzer’s and my views correctly.



Not hijacked at all. The thread is doing what I had hoped.



OPC'n said:


> Well, I guess you'll find out in then end that amil's were right but you'll be ok anyway.....we'll all let you in without putting up too much of a fuss.



I'm fine with any view being correct, however, I am basically amil. I just don't make a big fuss about it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Matthew,

The reason for my protracted scrutiny of the concept of “Christianized” nations (and a “Christianized” world) – meaning outwardly compliant with the Law of God but inwardly far from Him – is that you have posited this as the reality of Scriptures such as Psalm 22:27, 

All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.​
The commentator you are preferring here, Gill, says of this verse,



> That is, all the elect of God among the Gentiles, who live in the farthermost parts of the world, for whom Christ is appointed to be their salvation, and whom he calls to look to him for it . . . not only externally, by praying before the Lord, and attending on his word and ordinances; but internally, in spirit and in truth, which worshippers the Lord seeks; such spiritual worship being suitable to his nature, and such worshippers believers in him are; this must be understood of some of all nations, kindred and tongues, whom Christ has redeemed by his blood, and calls by his grace...



I would concur with his remarks. He says these elect are worshipping “not only externally . . . but internally, in spirit and truth”, and “this must be understood of some of all nations, kindred and tongues” and not a mass of “externally Christianized” nations.

Then you bring Psalm 66:3 (and 4),

Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.

All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name. Selah.​
Of verse 3 you quote Gill saying “It will be a forced, and not a free, confession and submission; Christ’s enemies, whether they will or not, will be obliged to own that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” But the very next words in his comment (omitted in your quote) refer the reader to “Phil. ii. 10, 11”, where Gill says,



> ...the holy angels confess him to be Lord, and their Lord truly, and are unfeignedly subject to him; and true believers heartily own him as their Lord, and cheerfully submit to his commands and ordinances; and the foolish virgins, and the goats on Christ's left hand, will, at the last day, call him Lord, Lord; and the worst of men, yea, even devils, will be obliged to own his lordship and dominion; which will be to the glory of God the Father.



Now of verse 4 in this Psalm, Gill says,



> ...[this] internal worship, in the exercise of faith, hope, and love . . . This universal worship, that will be yielded him, will be in the latter day; which shows that this psalm respects those times, when Christ shall be King over all the earth, and his name, worship, and religion, one...



and he cites as reference Rev 15:4 and 14:3, where in the former, it is written, “all nations shall come and worship before thee”, this being the song of the redeemed in Heaven; and in the latter, the same redeemed sing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb. This is not some feigned worship of “Christianized” skulking hypocrites of _this_ age, but the nations of the redeemed in, if not the age to come, in the intermediate state of Heaven before the resurrection.

With regard to Psalm 18:44,

As soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me: the strangers shall submit themselves unto me.​
Now “submit” in 18:44 can indeed have the meaning of outward compliance only but it is not clear of whom it speaks and when. Is it of David and his conquests, or if of Christ, when? There is an obscurity here that would seem to me to preclude its being used to support your contention of forced compliance in a golden age on earth.

You say,



> Only 10% of a nation might come for baptism, but the nation itself would be converted where its rulers acknowledge the sovereign claims of Christ as the prince of the kings of the earth and legislate in subjection to God's law.



I would have some questions about this. First, in subjection to _what_ of God’s law? The Decalogue? Both tables? The penal codes? (I hope not!) Second, where do you get this idea of a “converted nation”? This is not a Biblical category. I do read in Psalm 33:12,

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.​
But only one nation fits that bill: 

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (1 Pet 2:9).​
And this nation is comprised of “all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Rev 7:9), and we see them again planted on the New Earth, in the New Jerusalem, of which God and the Lamb are the light: 

And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their honour and glory into it . . . And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. (Rev 21:24, 26)​
The Scriptures which talk of the nations – _as such_ – worshipping the Lord are looking forward to finding their complete fulfillment on the New Earth. Yes, the present Australian nation may worship the Lord, but this is understood to be the redeemed of them. “But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.” (Ps 50:16, 17)

When I asked you, 



> On what basis do you say of _parousia_ in 2 Thess 2:8, “It is clearly not a reference to the physical return of Christ”?



You replied, 



> The NT nowhere leads us to believe that the return of Christ shall be non-physical; but 2 Thess. 2 speaks of His coming as non-physical; therefore it cannot be referring to the return of Christ.



What – I would ask you – differentiates the _parousia_ of 2 Thess 2:1 and 8 from 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; and 5:23? All of which in 1 Thess refer to the 2nd Coming. It seems clear that 2 Thess 2:1 does as well. Why do you exempt 2:8 from His physical coming? Exegetically? For it seems to me to parallel the return of the Lord in Rev 19:15 and 20 when Jesus executes vengeance on the beasts and their armies, and also Rev 20:9 where the Lord devours by fire the deceived hordes attacking of the camp of the saints, along with the devil who deceived them.

With regard to your comment,



> ...the idealist interpretation is not futurist and does not look for a specific end of time manifestation; so it is a matter of either being idealist or futurist



I would like to counter that with a quote from Vern Poythress’ approach in his, _The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation_, the conclusion of the chapter, “Schools of Interpretation”,



> *Combining the Insights of the Schools*
> 
> All the schools except the historicist school have considerable merit. Can we somehow combine them? If we start with the idealist approach, it is relatively easy to see how. The images in Revelation enjoy _multiple_ fulfillments. They do so because they embody a general pattern. The arguments in favor of futurism show convincingly that Revelation is interested in the Second coming and the immediately preceding crisis (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1-12). But fulfillment in the final crisis does not eliminate earlier instances of the general pattern. We have _both_ a general pattern _and_ a particular embodiment of the pattern in the final crisis.
> 
> Likewise, the arguments in favor of preterism show convincingly that Revelation is interested in the seven churches and their historical situation. The symbols thus have a particular embodiment in the first century, and we ought to pay attention to this embodiment.
> 
> Finally, we have a responsibility to apply the message of Revelation to our own situation, because we are somewhere in church history, somewhere in the interadvental period to which this book applies. Here is the grain of truth in the historicist approach.
> 
> We can sum up these insights in a single combined picture. The major symbols of Revelation represent a repeated pattern. This pattern has a realization in the first century situation of the seven churches. It also has an embodiment in the final crisis. And it has an embodiment now. We pay special attention to the embodiment now, because we must apply the lessons of Revelation to where we are. (p. 37)



Placing his book in perspective regarding other works, in his Acknowledgments he says,



> I wrote the bulk of the book before having in hand G.K. Beale’s book, _The Book of Revelation: A Commentary of the Greek Text_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). I now find to my delight that Beale’s approach is very similar to mine. He has provided the world with an outstanding technical commentary largely complementary to the practical focus of this book. Readers looking for more complete information and more thorough discussion may consult his commentary. (p. 7)



To finish this post, a couple of final thoughts. “Babylon” was once embodied in a specific empire and even city – Rome. Why then must the Babylon of the end time be but an amorphous entity, and not again a specific empire – and nation?

If we are stuck in the thought-forms and perceptions of the 17th century we will not be able to perceive the threats and realities of the 21st. We will be imposing the old upon the new, the past upon the present, and be blind.


----------



## MW

Steve,

I see no reason to belabour the point about the use of the term conversion. Historians speak of the "conversion" of the Roman Empire and of the nations at the Reformation. If you insist on a limited understanding of the term, it is neither here nor there. The fact remains that "Christians" and "converts" are not always genuine.

It seems to me that the case for a pessimistic outlook comes down to your support for Poythress' view that the visions of Revelation can be interpreted ideally and have multiple fulfilments including a futuristic one. I accept they have multiple applications in history. I do not believe "fulfilment" is the appropriate word and that the use of this word would alter our understanding of the NT "fulfilling" the OT. Resemblances do not amount to fulfilment. But allowing this use of the word in context for the sake of discussion, what are we left with? I maintain "historicist" interpretations of Revelation are valid applications. You allow "futurist" interpretations are valid fulfilments. At the end of the day, though, the historicists are appealing to things which have happened and are certified, whereas futurists are predicting what shall happen. One must therefore have a pessimistic outlook on the future in order to read a pessimistic outlook into a futurist fulfilment of Revelation.

But we come back to the stubborn fact of "history." We have no basis for believing that the state of affiars described as existing in the consummation are not the result of historical progress. All God's purposes are worked out in history. The idea of restricting the nations worshipping God to the second coming of Christ is (1) without exegetical foundation, and (2) contrary to our reformed theology that God executes His decrees in the works of creation and providence.


----------



## Heidelberg1

armourbearer said:


> It seems to me that the case for a pessimistic outlook comes down to your support for Poythress' view that the visions of Revelation can be interpreted ideally and have multiple fulfilments including a futuristic one. I accept they have multiple applications in history. I do not believe "fulfilment" is the appropriate word and that the use of this word would alter our understanding of the NT "fulfilling" the OT. Resemblances do not amount to fulfilment. But allowing this use of the word in context for the sake of discussion, what are we left with? I maintain "historicist" interpretations of Revelation are valid applications. You allow "futurist" interpretations are valid fulfilments. At the end of the day, though, the historicists are appealing to things which have happened and are certified, whereas futurists are predicting what shall happen. One must therefore have a pessimistic outlook on the future in order to read a pessimistic outlook into a futurist fulfilment of Revelation.
> 
> But we come back to the stubborn fact of "history." We have no basis for believing that the state of affiars described as existing in the consummation are not the result of historical progress. All God's purposes are worked out in history. The idea of restricting the nations worshipping God to the second coming of Christ is (1) without exegetical foundation, and (2) contrary to our reformed theology that God executes His decrees in the works of creation and providence.



Reverend Winzer,

Would you agree that Revelation 19:11-21 describes the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ? 

Revelation 19:11-21 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. (12) His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. (13) He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (14) And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. (15) From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (16) On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (17) Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, (18) to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great." (19) And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. (20) And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. (21) And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

Would you agree that Revelation 20:7-10 describes the events immediately prior to and including Christ's second coming? 

Revelation 20:7-10 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison (8) and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. (9) And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, (10) and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Do we not have Biblical warrant in these texts for being somewhat pessimistic (or cautious) about the state of the world at the Second Coming (much apostasy and opposition to Christ), but optimistic that there will be "ransomed people from every tribe and language and people and nation" who will worship before the throne of God for all eternity?

Blessings,


----------



## MW

Heidelberg1 said:


> Would you agree that Revelation 19:11-21 describes the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ?



I don't think we can conclude that this is a vision of Christ's second coming simpliciter. In the Revelation we are always confronted with heavenly reality invading earthly reality. It provides perspective. If it is speaking of the second coming of Christ then it is looking at it as a projection on the battle that rages throughout the history of the church. This is clear from the fact that the vision sets forth the forces of this world engaging in warfare against Him, whereas no resistance is expected at the triumphant return of the King.



Heidelberg1 said:


> Would you agree that Revelation 20:7-10 describes the events immediately prior to and including Christ's second coming?



No. In an idealist interpretation the thousand years is a perfect period of time in which the saints enjoy rest with Christ until the final judgment. There can be no period of time that is literally _after_ this thousand years. The successive vision from vv. 7ff must therefore be looking at the same period of time from a different perspective.



Heidelberg1 said:


> Do we not have Biblical warrant in these texts for being somewhat pessimistic (or cautious) about the state of the world at the Second Coming (much apostasy and opposition to Christ), but optimistic that there will be "ransomed people from every tribe and language and people and nation" who will worship before the throne of God for all eternity?



One may be as pessimistic or as optimistic as the visions presented in the Revelation allow, but it must be received that these visions pertain to the whole of the church's history and will include her times of flourishing as well as her times of diminishing. Hence the visions should not be seen as indicative of the outward circumstances of the church in terms of politics, economics, etc., but of spiritual realities which are always present in her condition in the world.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Matthew,

When you say, “The fact remains that ‘Christians’ and ‘converts’ are not always genuine”, of course I agree. Essentially, my disagreement is the use of Scriptures depicting the truly universal worship of Christ to apply to “this present evil age” (Gal 1:4). Take Psalm 72, for example, verses 11 and 17:

Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him . . . His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.​
From my perspective, there are two ways to understand this: either _some_ of all nations, the elect, the chaff being discounted, or _all_ nations and _all_ men in them on the New Earth. The mention of “all kings” seems more like the latter. The practical implications for getting this wrong are serious: we will be off guard and unprepared if we expect optimistic developments in the world, “which whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 Jn 5:19) and “the power of darkness” (Col 1:13; cf. Eph 2:2). With false expectations of peace and prosperity ahead our apprehension of impending onslaught will be dulled and diminished. We will see the various hate crime legislations aimed against us and shrug them off as negligible in light of the “better days to come”. Which is _not_ to say the true church will not thrive, though many will be offended, and their love wax cold.

What you say here is interesting:



> We have no basis for believing that the state of affairs described as existing in the consummation are not the result of historical progress. All God's purposes are worked out in history. The idea of restricting the nations worshipping God to the second coming of Christ is (1) without exegetical foundation, and (2) contrary to our reformed theology that God executes His decrees in the works of creation and providence.



We differ, I think, as to “the state of affairs . . . existing in the consummation”, though I agree they are the result of historical progress – save, that is, for the coming of Christ to save His people and destroy his enemies. My view of “historical progress” is both from what I see Scripture saying _and_ discerning the times. I have commented on item (1) just above, and as regards (2), I agree with Reformed theology, though I see God executing His decrees in a different manner than you, I think. I see escalating judgments against the idolatries of the inhabitants of the earth and their persecution of His people during the interadvental period, culminating in His gathering the kings of the whole world to the battle of that great day of God Almighty under the 6th vial, right at the end of the age. The remnant of God’s people, while they are in the fiery trial of affliction, are sealed and spiritually protected. I call myself neither a pessimist nor an optimist – I prefer to think of myself as a realist according to the Scripture.

Thanks for the enjoyable discussion, Matthew.


----------



## MW

Steve, thankyou for your response. I think we have fleshed out our respective views to the point that further discussion would be needless repetition. I am happy to leave it there in the spirit of Phil. 3:15, 16.


----------



## Dewi Sant

armourbearer said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be of no earthly good for Christ to return, draw the nations to himself and teach them his ways, and be their shepherd forever in the new earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your original question was from the amillennial view, but this expresses more of a premillennial perspective. The premillennial view does not understand the saving work of Christ. It humbles Christ and carnalises His kingdom. Christ sits at God's right hand until all His enemies are made His footstool. The Holy Spirit is the Advocate who dwells with us for ever. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ's kingdom increases without end.
Click to expand...


Dear Rev. Winzer, 
And as He sits at the right hand of God, His enemies are are added daily to His footstool. His Kingdom does indeed increase without end. As an A-mil I am confused by the pessimism that others ascribe to this position. Christ was, is and always will be victorious, no? Our victory is in Jesus. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.


----------



## MW

Dewi Sant said:


> And as He sits at the right hand of God, His enemies are are added daily to His footstool. His Kingdom does indeed increase without end. As an A-mil I am confused by the pessimism that others ascribe to this position. Christ was, is and always will be victorious, no? Our victory is in Jesus. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.


 
I don't see anything pessimistic in what you have expressed. Pessimism only comes into it when it is asserted that the increasing of Christ's kingdom and restraining of His enemies must be limited as a result of socio-political conditions which are hostile to the rule of Christ in the world.


----------

