# Historic Premill View



## staythecourse (Jun 13, 2008)

The things I've concluded so far, whether right or wrong.

Yes. Every event can be argued as having been fulfilled by 70 AD but not as catastrophically as what is still coming to pass where Scripture speaks of global physical bad things.
Yes. There were earthquakes at the crucifixion - locally
Yes. There were astronomical events - locally (correct me here Scripturally - did darkness spread across "the earth" or "the land" or can it be determined?)

But did the seas turn to blood? I am sure if you stretch Scripture far enough you can say seas turned to blood in some type of symbolism but I _rest_ in literalism as much as I can, so if the Nile turned to undrinkable blood in Moses' days-water I am waiting for the same to happen again, literally with other great bodies of water.
Did stars fall and cause poisoned water? I am sure some type of logic can be used to say that happened but I believe that just as Egypt suffered physically with food and water, so will the entire earth as it comes under judgment.

As far as Ezekiel's temple is concerned it, according to my understanding, the sacrifices can start up again but without one iota of significance to God as Christ's blood has already been shed and that's the only blood that matters to God.

There is no secret rapture but the dead in Christ get raised followed with us who are living in quick succession to come back to earth with Christ to reign in Jerusalem where he sets set up a millennial kingdom when 1. Satan will be bound and 2. People will feign love and obedience to Christ with the saints and 3. Folks will die at 100 and be considered cursed while other folk live to 1000.

Satan will be loosed again at the end with and Armageddon scene with literal nations attacking us where we are rule the world from Jerusalem and then Christ put an end to it all with the final Judgment.

Alright, chip away at the logic brothers. I'm ready to listen.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 13, 2008)

Gutsy guy. You advance a premil point of view _here_ in the land of Calvin and Edwards, of Engelsma and Gentry, of "see no evil" Amils and "there's a great big beautiful tomorrow" Postmils? What are you . . . nuts? Bryan, please keep the bullets to yourself. All of the truly great martyrs in church history went to their martyrdom alone, they did not bring their PB brothers along with them. I am already picking the buckshot out of my backside all evening for my "heretical" view of credo baptism. Now you want to go and turn the spotlight on the few of us who opt for a non-standard PB eschatological schema too?

I'll bet you volunteer to tell your SBTS profs who didn't finish their homework too.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 13, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> There is no secret rapture...



I wonder why it's always referred to as a "secret" rapture. The Bible certainly doesn't regard it in that way (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). It will be a _very_ public event!


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2008)

bookslover said:


> I wonder why it's always referred to as a "secret" rapture. The Bible certainly doesn't regard it in that way (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). It will be a _very_ public event!



Accordingly, the text affirms that the general resurrection takes place at the second coming of Christ, and that this coming results in the consummation wherein the saints are to be with the Lord for ever, thereby nullifying any thought of a millennial reign on earth.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2008)

Russell Moore's book _the Kingdom of Christ_ is the best presentation of the historic premil book. He even has some amillennialists admitting they are stumped. 

If the debate were simply between Russell Moore's historic premil and today's amillennialism, Russell Moore wins hands down. He even convinced me. However, due to my own recent understanding of biblical symbolism, I cannot go with him on Revelation 20. That being said, I still think his criticisms of amils on that point are valid.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 13, 2008)

Jacob - you're not premill anymore ?

Do you still have those links to Moore's premill talk from a while back that you posted ?


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jun 13, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Gutsy guy. You advance a premil point of view _here_ in the land of Calvin and Edwards, of Engelsma and Gentry, of "see no evil" Amils and "there's a great big beautiful tomorrow" Postmils? What are you . . . nuts? Bryan, please keep the bullets to yourself. All of the truly great martyrs in church history went to their martyrdom alone, they did not bring their PB brothers along with them. I am already picking the buckshot out of my backside all evening for my "heretical" view of credo baptism. Now you want to go and turn the spotlight on the few of us who opt for a non-standard PB eschatological schema too?
> 
> I'll bet you volunteer to tell your SBTS profs who didn't finish their homework too.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why it's always referred to as a "secret" rapture. The Bible certainly doesn't regard it in that way (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). It will be a _very_ public event!
> ...



My former minister (Rev. John Hawthorne) once preached on that passage and said this about the secret rapture:

"In order to believe that you would have to believe in a whispering God, a dumb archangel, and a mute trumpet."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2008)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Jacob - you're not premill anymore ?
> 
> Do you still have those links to Moore's premill talk from a while back that you posted ?



I reject millennial schemata (post, a, pre). I do not think they do justice to the text. I do like the millennial kingdom idea. But I am a partial preterist with regard to the "negative passages."

here is the link:
The Henry Institute: Audio


----------



## danmpem (Jun 13, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I reject millennial schemata (post, a, pre). I do not think they do justice to the text. I do like the millennial kingdom idea. But I am a partial preterist with regard to the "negative passages."



Could you ellaborate a little more please?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > I reject millennial schemata (post, a, pre). I do not think they do justice to the text. I do like the millennial kingdom idea. But I am a partial preterist with regard to the \"negative passages.\"
> ...



Postmills are absolutely correct to note that the latter days do not always mean failure for God. Isaiah 2, etc. 

Premils are absolutely correct to note the prophetic role of the church in calling judgment on apostate culture. They are also correct to affirm the goodness of God's material creation (e.g., Rev 20). They rightly react to the hyper-spiritualizing of OT passages by amils (there is a difference between typology and spiritualizing).

amils? Well, I can't think of strengths at the moment but I am sure they are there. I guess I would agree with them that we are in the church age, but I reject that the church is synonymous with the kingdom of God and that the Church simply replaces Israel. 

Problem is, I am not convinced by any one scheme. With the exception of amil, they all have their good points. 

Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter reconvinced me of partial preterism.
Amazon.com: The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter: Peter J. Leithart: Books

Here is a quote from Russell Moore.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/apocalyptic-kuyperianism-25365/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

I do hold to the Amil position because I do see that Isreal is the Church. I hold to it primarily because of it's Kingdom emphasis. Chirst has dominion over all things for the Church as Ephesians says. The passages that speak about Satan's binding convince me. He is bound. And like A. W. Pink I think this passage is pertinent.



> (1Co 15:22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
> 
> (1Co 15:23) * But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
> 
> (1Co 15:24) Then cometh the end,* when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I do hold to the Amil position because I do see that Isreal is the Church. I hold to it primarily because of it's Kingdom emphasis. Chirst has dominion over all things for the Church as Ephesians says. The passages that speak about Satan's binding convince me. He is bound. And like A. W. Pink I think this passage is pertinent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I were postmil, I would die on this hill. It is too dominion-oriented. But I won't go there. What George Ladd and others argue, however, is that 23-24 posit a break. Logically speaking, it is not wrong to argue for an intererim between v. 23 and . 24. But this is too contested a ground.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Amil is actually a relatively new term. If one was amil it was considered post a few hundred years ago according to Cornelius P. Venema. 

I really appreciated this book...






Promise of the Future :: Cornelis P. Venema :: Contemporary Authors :: Modern Authors :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books and Resources for Christians


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2008)

Venema is probably the best amillennialist. He doesn't pessimize passages and deals doesn't resort to straw-manning other positions. I would definitely recommend his work.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Amil is actually a relatively new term. If one was amil it was considered post a few hundred years ago according to Cornelius P. Venema.
> 
> I really appreciated this book...
> 
> ...





Ivanhoe said:


> Venema is probably the best amillennialist. He doesn't pessimize passages and deals doesn't resort to straw-manning other positions. I would definitely recommend his work.



 to both comments; even a hard-core postmiller like myself appreciated and learned much from Dr. Venema's work. He moved me away from the golden-age postmill view to a modern postmill approach.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 13, 2008)

> Gutsy guy. You advance a premil point of view here in the land of Calvin and Edwards, of Engelsma and Gentry, of "see no evil" Amils and "there's a great big beautiful tomorrow" Postmils? What are you . . . nuts? Bryan, please keep the bullets to yourself. All of the truly great martyrs in church history went to their martyrdom alone, they did not bring their PB brothers along with them. I am already picking the buckshot out of my backside all evening for my "heretical" view of credo baptism. Now you want to go and turn the spotlight on the few of us who opt for a non-standard PB eschatological schema too?



 Well I'm finally comfortable enough to express this view among friends. I have not read one book on eschatology. I can't tell you how I came up with this since I never did a systematic study on it. I am ready for it to get hammered!


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 13, 2008)

> Accordingly, the text affirms that the general resurrection takes place at the second coming of Christ, and that this coming results in the consummation wherein the saints are to be with the Lord for ever, thereby nullifying any thought of a millennial reign on earth.



Thanks Pastor Winzer. I don't necessarily agree but I'm reading this stuff. I think (emph. "think") that we will be with the Lord forever from that point on reigning for 1000 years and beyond. I don't think the two events are, as they say, mutually exclusive.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 13, 2008)

> The passages that speak about Satan's binding convince me. He is bound.



Thanks Randy. I want to see these types of verses which will help me understand "how much" Satan is bound now (man I hate his guts and wish he were dead) and what type of loosing if any there will be, etc.


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> I think (emph. "think") that we will be with the Lord forever from that point on reigning for 1000 years and beyond. I don't think the two events are, as they say, mutually exclusive.



What, then, do you make of Rev. 20:5, concerning "the rest of the dead?"


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 13, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > I think (emph. "think") that we will be with the Lord forever from that point on reigning for 1000 years and beyond. I don't think the two events are, as they say, mutually exclusive.
> ...



I have absolutely no answer for that......yet. Seriously, I will not try to make up an answer to fit my eschatology. If one verse kills it, so be it. Thanks for the good post.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jun 13, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> > The passages that speak about Satan's binding convince me. He is bound.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Randy. I want to see these types of verses which will help me understand "how much" Satan is bound now (man I hate his guts and wish he were dead) and what type of loosing if any there will be, etc.



Luke 11:14-23, Luke 10:17-20.

Apparently he's bound enough so that the gospel can go to all the nations. Why this is a question of "how much" he is bound or if he's "really" bound has never made much sense to me.


----------



## Greg (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> He moved me away from the golden-age postmill view to a modern postmill approach.



Where does the difference lie?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Greg said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > He moved me away from the golden-age postmill view to a modern postmill approach.
> ...



I see the whole NT era as the golden age of the church, not as a separate golden age within the NT age. Though I don't agree with the amill interpretation of Rev. 20.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 13, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Venema is probably the best amillennialist. He doesn't pessimize passages and deals doesn't resort to straw-manning other positions. I would definitely recommend his work.



"Pessimize"? "straw-manning?" What did you say the name of that dictionary you use was?


----------



## bookslover (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm historic premil, myself. But one thing I like to say: whichever of the three main positions you hold, hold it sincerely, but hold it lightly, because we could all be wrong! The fact that these three positions have been teased out of the same biblical material demonstrates this.

Perhaps three positions based on the same material is God's way of saying: "None of your business regarding the details of how it all turns out!"

After all, we're not meant to know _everything_ God is doing on this side of the grave - and maybe not even on the other side!


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 13, 2008)

> hold it sincerely, but hold it lightly


 I believe most theologians, however well versed, would agree. I know my hold is loose on end times prophecies.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

I have some good things for you to read. Will bring them to you if we see each other next weekend.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 13, 2008)

Thanks Randy. Lord-willing see you then.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 13, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Accordingly, the text affirms that the general resurrection takes place at the second coming of Christ, and that this coming results in the consummation wherein the saints are to be with the Lord for ever, thereby nullifying any thought of a millennial reign on earth.



Matthew, how do you reconcile a "general" resurrection with the Bible's language of there being a "first resurrection" (Revelation 20:5-6), which implies at least two - one of the righteous and one of the wicked?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 13, 2008)

bookslover said:


> I'm historic premil, myself. But one thing I like to say: whichever of the three main positions you hold, hold it sincerely, but hold it lightly, because we could all be wrong! The fact that these three positions have been teased out of the same biblical material demonstrates this.
> 
> Perhaps three positions based on the same material is God's way of saying: "None of your business regarding the details of how it all turns out!"
> 
> After all, we're not meant to know _everything_ God is doing on this side of the grave - and maybe not even on the other side!



THAT is a quotable. Can I quote you on this ? Please ?


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2008)

bookslover said:


> Matthew, how do you reconcile a "general" resurrection with the Bible's language of there being a "first resurrection" (Revelation 20:5-6), which implies at least two - one of the righteous and one of the wicked?



In John 5:24-29, the quickening power of the Son is described in two aspects: the first in terms of what we would call justification (v. 24) and regneration (v. 25); the second in terms of the raising of the dead (vv. 28, 29). So here there is an obvious reference to a first and a second resurrection. In Revelation 20, though, the two resurrections are best understood in terms of what our Catechism calls the benefits of Christ at death and resurrection. The first resurrection equates to the translation of the soul into the glorious intermediate state, and the second resurrection is what is generally known as the resurrection of the body wherein the soul is reunited to the body and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity. Warfield's Biblical Doctrines contains an excellent article on the Millennium, which I highly recommend, especially pp. 649ff. See also Hoekema's The Bible and the Future, pp. 223ff., where Ladd's objections are also ably dealt with.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 15, 2008)

BlackCalvinist said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I'm historic premil, myself. But one thing I like to say: whichever of the three main positions you hold, hold it sincerely, but hold it lightly, because we could all be wrong! The fact that these three positions have been teased out of the same biblical material demonstrates this.
> ...



Certainly. Feel free. Probably not original with me, anyway!


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 15, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > I think (emph. "think") that we will be with the Lord forever from that point on reigning for 1000 years and beyond. I don't think the two events are, as they say, mutually exclusive.
> ...



Pastor Winzer, thank you for putting me to task with this verse. My conclusion until otherwise debunked is that this refers to .... drum roll please..... All part of the _resurrection of the righteous_ aka the first resurrection and not the second resurrection of the ....drum roll.... firecrackers and finally .... cannon shot..... the resurrection of the all aka the 2nd resurrection and Great Day of Judgment.

Also, and put me to task on this, the Rev 20:4 are the super-duper Christians who actually were killed for their faith and will reign on earth for 1000 years unlike other saints (ie. me probably) who will be resurrected at the end of the 1000 years bodily with the non-super-duper Christian and wicked. Unless I am killed for the faith I will not reign during the 1000 years but will be in Heaven waiting for the New Heaven and New earth.




> Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.




Who is in the first resurrection? (This is me asking myself to get the facts straight - er) 1. beheaded saints 2. those who did not receive the mark/image of the beast. 

What did these folks of the first resurrection do? Reign with Christ for 1000 years.

John 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."

1. The hour _is coming_ when the dead will hear the the voice of the Son of God will live = bodily resurrection.
2. The hour _now is_ who will hear the voice of the Son of God and will live = spiritual resurrection aka conversion.



26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 

This refers to the first resurrection = spiritual and eternal life

27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 

This refers to the the second resurrection and the judgment of all.

28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. 

This, too is the second resurrection - post 1000 year reign and happens at one time in a single 24 hour day (or so - somehow.)

Debunk if debunkable.

Also, I did refer to other people/books before posting. This was after researching the word resurrection be that good or bad.


----------



## MW (Jun 15, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> Also, and put me to task on this, the Rev 20:4 are the super-duper Christians who actually were killed for their faith and will reign on earth for 1000 years unlike other saints (ie. me probably) who will be resurrected at the end of the 1000 years bodily with the non-super-duper Christian and wicked. Unless I am killed for the faith I will not reign during the 1000 years but will be in Heaven waiting for the New Heaven and New earth.



The problem is that these live and reign "WITH Christ a thousand years." But you already agreed that when Christ comes again all believers go to be WITH THE LORD for ever. If you are in heaven still awaiting a resurrected body, and Christ has come again and is living on earth with these super spirituals, then obviously you are not WITH Christ for ever at His second coming. That is a contradiction, unless you are a Lutheran who believes in an ubiquitous human nature.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 16, 2008)

But my problem with all this is that they were beheaded _first_ before they lived and reigned with Christ. So how can that living and reigning be simply regeneration, as some amills state? I want to know, buecause I'm amillennial.


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2008)

turmeric said:


> But my problem with all this is that they were beheaded _first_ before they lived and reigned with Christ. So how can that living and reigning be simply regeneration, as some amills state? I want to know, buecause I'm amillennial.



See post #32 above. This is why the intermediate state is far more suitable to the description, and accords with the fact that the vision included the "souls" of those beheaded for the witness of Jesus.


----------



## jogri17 (Jun 16, 2008)

To quote my former pastor and good friend Dr. Curt Daniel, "You know if it wasn't for Revelation 20:2-7 I'd be Amil but they are inspired so I gotta say Historic Pre-mil". As he told me in his delightful texas accent.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 16, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > Also, and put me to task on this, the Rev 20:4 are the super-duper Christians who actually were killed for their faith and will reign on earth for 1000 years unlike other saints (ie. me probably) who will be resurrected at the end of the 1000 years bodily with the non-super-duper Christian and wicked. Unless I am killed for the faith I will not reign during the 1000 years but will be in Heaven waiting for the New Heaven and New earth.
> ...



Yep. That is a problem. So going back to the 1 Thess. text....



> For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.



Facts and hopefully the correct sequence of events...

1. The dead in Christ will rise first as Jesus is descending
2. The saints still in the body get caught up right after them.
3. They are with Christ forever

Let me see how that flows with the above Rev passage...



> Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.



The saints who were beheaded lived during the great trib under the anti-Christ during a literal 7 year tribulation and they get caught up first while those that were not beheaded but just were blessed enough to not get a mark to buy/sell/etc, get caught up right after (as in minutes)

So let's say 1. I die and I believe in Christ and fall asleep in Christ tonight. First off I'd be much happier than the rest of you guys but besides that I'd be in the tomb.

2. Pastor Winser stays alive and goes through the 7 year trib with the anti-Christ and survives till Christ comes back without "the mark"

3. Joe Martyr is beheaded during the anti-Christ's reign and is put in a tomb.

4. Christ comes back and starts his descent from Heaven (in the same way as he ascended as Scripture says he will) and simultaneously

a. I get pulled out of the tomb
b. Joe Martyr is pulled out
c. Pastor Winser is swept up alive

5. Christ meets Anti-Christ/man of lawlessness tete-a-tete and with a word (breathe of is mouth) disposes of him in (Rev 20) the lake of fire

6. There is 1000 years of reigning with .... there it falls apart. I have all the saints together (body and soul) to set up a kingdom of 1000 years unless ... Joe Martyr, Pastor Winser, and Jesus are on earth and I can live in a body in the clouds for 1000 years with Jesus simultaneously. No, I don't see it either.

I haven't given up yet though...


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> 6. There is 1000 years of reigning with .... there it falls apart. I have all the saints together (body and soul) to set up a kingdom of 1000 years unless ... Joe Martyr, Pastor Winser, and Jesus are on earth a I can live in a body in the clouds for 1000 with Jesus simultaneously. No, I don't see it either.



Thankfully my reading of Rev. 20 and 1 Thess. 4 has my soul going to be with Jesus when I die, and being reuinted to my body at the resurrection when Christ comes again, and enjoying the blessed presence of Jesus thereafter (Shorter Catechism, answers 37, 38).


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 16, 2008)

> Thankfully my reading of Rev. 20 and 1 Thess. 4 has my soul going to be with Jesus when I die, and being reuinted to my body at the resurrection when Christ comes again, and enjoying the blessed presence of Jesus thereafter (Shorter Catechism, answers 37, 38).



The 1000 years has be befuddled but I agree, when I die my soul is with the Lord and my body awaits to be called from the dirt to be reunited and be with Christ forever!!


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> > Thankfully my reading of Rev. 20 and 1 Thess. 4 has my soul going to be with Jesus when I die, and being reuinted to my body at the resurrection when Christ comes again, and enjoying the blessed presence of Jesus thereafter (Shorter Catechism, answers 37, 38).
> 
> 
> 
> The 1000 years has be befuddled but I agree, when I die my soul is with the Lord and my body awaits to be called from the dirt to be reunited and be with Christ forever!!



That's a truth you can sink your heart into, 1 Thess. 4:18. Much better than silly speculations which have the saints living in separation from Christ for extended periods. Blessings!


----------



## holyfool33 (Jun 28, 2008)

I think a lot of the logic laid out is solid but I have a question how does a historic Pre-mil look upon The Millennium? As a Dispensationalist I see it as an ethnic Jewish kingdom set up to fulfill God's promises to Israel. If your a historic Pre-mil to repeat the question why does there need to be a millennium wouldn't it make more sense to be Amil or Postmil?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 28, 2008)

> As a Dispensationalist I see it as an ethnic Jewish kingdom set up to fulfill God's promises to Israel.



Really?

Josh 20:43Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. 45Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 28, 2008)

holyfool33 said:


> I think a lot of the logic laid out is solid but I have a question how does a historic Pre-mil look upon The Millennium? As a Dispensationalist I see it as an ethnic Jewish kingdom set up to fulfill God's promises to Israel. If your a historic Pre-mil to repeat the question why does there need to be a millennium wouldn't it make more sense to be Amil or Postmil?



Aaron, while there are strands of historic premil in Reformed circles, the "majority report" has been amil/post-mil. The only major view that is considered absolutely out of bounds is the dispensational one. Are you in the wrong board by mistake? One can be a Calvinist pre-tribber (e.g., S. Lewis Johnson and John MacArthur), just not a confessional one by the standards of this board's rules.

Incidentally, I have been historic premil most of my life. However, the question you ask about an historic pre-mil having no good reason to hang onto a literal millennium is one that I have been pondering myself lately. Next week on vacation I am reading three good books recommended by the brethren here and try to decide for sure for myself. From the skimming I've already done, you might want to read the Venema book yourself.

Blessings in your theological endeavors.


----------



## staythecourse (Jun 28, 2008)

> Incidentally, I have been historic premil most of my life. However, the question you ask about an historic pre-mil having no good reason to hang onto a literal millennium is one that I have been pondering myself lately. Next week on vacation I am reading three good books recommended by the brethren here and try to decide for sure for myself. From the skimming I've already done, you might want to read the Venema book yourself.



Thanks for trying to work out the 1000 years, Dennis. I find the dispensational view, ala MacArthur, in starting up the now reprehensible sacrificial system.....um reprehensible. And I like MacArthur. God bless him.


----------



## Yodas_Prodigy (Aug 23, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Gutsy guy. You advance a premil point of view _here_ in the land of Calvin and Edwards, of Engelsma and Gentry, of "see no evil" Amils and "there's a great big beautiful tomorrow" Postmils? What are you . . . nuts? Bryan, please keep the bullets to yourself. All of the truly great martyrs in church history went to their martyrdom alone, they did not bring their PB brothers along with them. I am already picking the buckshot out of my backside all evening for my "heretical" view of credo baptism. Now you want to go and turn the spotlight on the few of us who opt for a non-standard PB eschatological schema too?
> 
> I'll bet you volunteer to tell your SBTS profs who didn't finish their homework too.



Two things... Lots of Laughs  and you really have a kind face. 
Blessings Brother...


----------



## JM (Aug 23, 2008)

Grace Christian Assembly
Grace Christian Assembly

# 025 - Intro to the Millennium
# 026 - Millennialism pt.2
# 027 - Hebrews 11 and Premillennial Thinking

# 047 - Amillennialism

# 088 - The History of Amillennialism
# 089 - The History of Premillennialism
# 090 - Augustine's Amillennialsm
# 091 - Revelation 20 and Amillennialism
# 092 - Answering the Two Age Model
# 093 - Answering Hoekema pt.1
# 094 - Answering Hoekema pt.2
# 095 - Answering Hoekema pt.3
# 096 - Answering Hoekema pt.4
# 097 - Answering Hoekema pt.5
# 098 - Answering Hoekema pt.6
# 099 - Answering Hoekema pt.7
# 100 - Answering Hoekema pt.8
# 101 - Answering Hoekema pt.9
# 102 - Answering Hoekema pt.10
# 103 - Hoekema and The Resurrection

Lewis S. Johnson : http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/a/Johnson/slj-66_Revelation/43_SLJ-66_24k.m3u


----------

