# I might become premillennial



## RamistThomist

Well, historical premill anyway. I just listened to a fantsatic set of messages by Russell Moore.
http://www.henryinstitute.org/audio_view.php?cid=10

He is historic premill. I still see a few big problems in premillennialism, but his exposition on Kingdom, as well as his critiques of amillennialism (e.g., having a static and neo-platonic view of heaven and kingdom) were pretty good.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW

Most modern postmillennial interpreters adopt the amillennial understanding of Revelation as progressive recapitulation. This is in keeping with the symbolic nature of the book. There is nothing neo-platonic about it. Written to encourage saints in tribulation the Apocalypse naturally abounds with "other-worldly" themes and presents kingdom victory in spiritual terms.


----------



## VictorBravo

Draught Horse said:


> Well, historical premill anyway. I just listened to a fantsatic set of messages by Russell Moore.
> http://www.henryinstitute.org/audio_view.php?cid=10
> 
> He is historic premill. I still see a few big problems in premillennialism, but his exposition on Kingdom, as well as his critiques of amillennialism (e.g., having a static and neo-platonic view of heaven and kingdom) were pretty good.



I always thought if you push postmil hard enough, it spills into premill. The only problem is that we don't know which end of the mill we are in. Both world views can support a strong view of a triumphant kingdom and outline our faithful duties.


----------



## RamistThomist

victorbravo said:


> n. Both world views can support a strong view of a triumphant kingdom and outline our faithful duties.



Indeed, Al Mohler--a premillennialist--is the most heroic champion of a Christian confrontation of secular culture.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Thanks for that link brother. I listened to part 1 while having breakfast and getting ready for work. It was hard to pull myself away from it. It was good.


----------



## Puritanhead

George Eldon Ladd is good, though I think kingdom views are more important than millennial views. I would narrow the gap to historic premil and amillennial with more of a futurist twist, but more preteristic than most dispensationalists can stomach. There is an _already here, not yet_ tension in eschatology.


----------



## RamistThomist

Blueridge reformer said:


> Thanks for that link brother. I listened to part 1 while having breakfast and getting ready for work. It was hard to pull myself away from it. It was good.



I was amazed at how good a preacher Russell Moore is.


----------



## Herald

I'm in the the pre-mil camp but by bags remain packed in case I have to travel again. Soteriology was hard enough. Prying away from dispensationalism seemed to be the last straw. Addressing eschatology was put on the back burner with the heat off. To quote a famous line, "Let's see where this thing goes..."


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Most modern postmillennial interpreters adopt the amillennial understanding of Revelation as progressive recapitulation. This is in keeping with the symbolic nature of the book. There is nothing neo-platonic about it. Written to encourage saints in tribulation the Apocalypse naturally abounds with "other-worldly" themes and presents kingdom victory in spiritual terms.



Is the 'progressinve recapitulation' view the same as the 'historicist' view?


----------



## AV1611

KMK said:


> Is the 'progressinve recapitulation' view the same as the 'historicist' view?



Not as far as I understand it but I will let someone more knowledgable explain 

As I understand it, Hendrickson's _More Than Conquerors_ is a good explanation of the 'progressive recapitulation' or progressive parallism view.


----------



## crhoades

At least wait until Gentry's commentary on Revelation comes out.


----------



## javajedi

KMK said:


> Is the 'progressinve recapitulation' view the same as the 'historicist' view?





AV1611 said:


> Not as far as I understand it but I will let someone more knowledgable explain
> 
> As I understand it, Hendrickson's _More Than Conquerors_ is a good explanation of the 'progressive recapitulation' or progressive parallism view.



Yes, Hendriksen's book is very good and easy to read.

No, the two views are different. Historicism is contrasted with Futurism (most of Rev. is future historical events - PreMill), Preterism (past - most fulfilled in AD70) and Idealism (Rev. deals more with ideas/symbolism than actual historical events - Amil takes this view).

The progressive parallelism/recapitulation looks at Revelation as a series of "pictures" from the first advent to the final consummation but from different "views" or purposes. The "progressive" part refers to these "pictures" as becoming more heavy in details of the end (second coming, judgment, new heavens/earth) and less in details of the current time of church. This view is usually tied to Amill (or Postmil I suppose).

Historicism (I know we have a couple out there, so correct me if I'm wrong), sees the events in Revelation as tied to specific events in world history since John wrote, leading up to our day. They do see a 'progression' in that they see the order of events in Rev. follow each other in actual historical order.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Scott

Jacob: As an FYI, if you do cross over you can get most of the Left Behind books cheap on eBay or half.com now. Don't pay retail.


----------



## crhoades

Scott said:


> Jacob: As an FYI, if you do cross over you can get most of the Left Behind books cheap on eBay or half.com now. Don't pay retail.


 Brutal. But funny. I'm pretty sure Jacob already owns _Right Behind_ if memory serves me...


----------



## Scott

crhoades said:


> Brutal. But funny. I'm pretty sure Jacob already owns _Right Behind_ if memory serves me...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hey:

One of the greatest Historicists was E.B. Elliott who was also Premillennial. Many claim that the Puritans are Postmillennial, and, yet they were Historicists as well. And Calvin, despite assertions by R.C. Sproul to the contrary, was most definately an Amillennial Historicist.

Recapitulation in the Book of Revelation is not contrary to Historicist views. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee has done some amazing work on recapitualtion in Revelation, and is an Historicist as well.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## Coram Deo

Nay,

I am a Theonomic Covenantal (Historic) PreMill.......... 

Just call me The "Fifth Monarchist Man"





trevorjohnson said:


> JACOB:
> 
> 
> WWBD
> 
> What would Bahnsen do!!!
> 
> 
> What! I thought all theonomists had to be posties!
> 
> 
> 
> Just pulling your chain. Love ya, brother. I like George Eldon Ladd myself.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Draught Horse said:


> I was amazed at how good a preacher Russell Moore is.




I got to listen to about half of the second message at lunch. Looking forward to continuing this evening.


----------



## JM

Thanks for the link.



> He is historic premill. I still see a few big problems in premillennialism, but his exposition on Kingdom, as well as his critiques of amillennialism (e.g., having a static and neo-platonic view of heaven and kingdom) were pretty good.



Check out, "Redating the New Testament".

Peace.


----------



## RamistThomist

crhoades said:


> Brutal. But funny. I'm pretty sure Jacob already owns _Right Behind_ if memory serves me...



Both Right Behind and Supergeddon, the latter was much funnier.


----------



## py3ak

Draught Horse said:


> Well, historical premill anyway. I just listened to a fantsatic set of messages by Russell Moore.
> http://www.henryinstitute.org/audio_view.php?cid=10
> 
> He is historic premill. I still see a few big problems in premillennialism, but his exposition on Kingdom, as well as his critiques of amillennialism (e.g., having a static and neo-platonic view of heaven and kingdom) were pretty good.



Well, this certainly puts a dent in my optimism for the future.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Just listened to the last two messages. While I remain unconvinced about the premill position, it is an excellent series of sermons that I would reccomend to anyone. Again, thanks for the link brother.


----------



## RamistThomist

My main problem with premill at the moment is the thousand year earthly reign of Christ. That and the baptistic perspective in the lectures; other than that it was quite good.


----------



## Pilgrim

J. Barton Payne (1922-1979) of Covenant Seminary was a historic premillenialist, as were Francis Schaeffer and Gordon Clark and apparently a good many others from the old RPCES, part of which consisted of a group that had come out of the Bible Presbyterian Church. Payne's best known work was perhaps The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy . One current Baptist historic premil advocate once told me he thought Payne's work was more helpful than Ladd's. 

I have only had limited exposure to Russell Moore so far, but I have been very impressed by what I've heard and read so far, although as a Presbyterian obviously I disagree with him on a number of issues. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe in his position at SBTS that he is responsible for bringing in many of the new professors in recent years. Other than his serving as a guest host of Mohler's show, the only audio I've heard of him was a symposium on eschatology sponsored by the Henry Institute that featured Paige Patterson as favoring essentially a classic Dispensational approach (although he rejects the 7 dispensation framework), a progressive Dispensational (can't remember who), Al Mohler who presented basically a historic premil view and Dr. Gaffin representing the amil view.


----------



## JM

Pilgrim said:


> J. Barton Payne (1922-1979) of Covenant Seminary was a historic premillenialist, as were Francis Schaeffer and Gordon Clark. Payne's best known work was The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy . One current Baptist historic premil advocate once told me he thought Payne's work was more helpful than Ladd's.
> 
> I have only had limited exposure to Russell Moore so far, but I have been very impressed by what I've heard and read so far. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe in his position at SBTS that he is responsible for bringing in many of the new professors in recent years. Other than his serving as a guest host of Mohler's show, the only audio I've heard of him was a symposium on eschatology sponsored by the Henry Institute that featured Paige Patterson as favoring essentially a classic Dispensational approach (although he rejects the 7 dispensation framework), a progressive Dispensational (can't remember who), Al Mohler who presented basically a historic premil view and Dr. Gaffin representing the amil view.



I have Payne's Encyclopedia, it's a masterful work and a must have.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> J. Barton Payne (1922-1979) of Covenant Seminary was a historic premillenialist, as were Francis Schaeffer and Gordon Clark and apparently a good many others from the old RPCES, part of which consisted of a group that had come out of the Bible Presbyterian Church. Payne's best known work was perhaps The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy . One current Baptist historic premil advocate once told me he thought Payne's work was more helpful than Ladd's.
> 
> I have only had limited exposure to Russell Moore so far, but I have been very impressed by what I've heard and read so far, although as a Presbyterian obviously I disagree with him on a number of issues. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe in his position at SBTS that he is responsible for bringing in many of the new professors in recent years. Other than his serving as a guest host of Mohler's show, the only audio I've heard of him was a symposium on eschatology sponsored by the Henry Institute that featured Paige Patterson as favoring essentially a classic Dispensational approach (although he rejects the 7 dispensation framework), a progressive Dispensational (can't remember who), Al Mohler who presented basically a historic premil view and Dr. Gaffin representing the amil view.



do you know where that audio is?


----------



## Ivan

Draught Horse said:


> Indeed, Al Mohler--a premillennialist--is the most heroic champion of a Christian confrontation of secular culture.





Draught Horse said:


> I was amazed at how good a preacher Russell Moore is.



As to Mohler, I'm assuming a historic premillennialist, right?

As to Moore, et al, at Southern....I must say as a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southern is the best SBC seminary by far. I am proud and exciting at what is happening at Southern. If I were a "young gun" I'd head to Southern in a heartbeat!


----------



## Pilgrim

Draught Horse said:


> do you know where that audio is?



Whose Holy Land? Israel, the Church, and the Battle for Palestine. This is from a few years ago since Patterson is still listed as being at SEBTS instead of his current position at SWBTS. Craig Blaising is the progressive dispensational advocate that I couldn't think of. If I recall correctly all of them present their positions and there is time for rebuttal and/or audience questions. I think it lasts well over an hour. Some of it toward the end gets into some in-house Baptist talk, but Gaffin is given ample time to present his views. Of course the biggest shocker of all would be for you to adopt Gaffin's eschatological views .


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Is the 'progressinve recapitulation' view the same as the 'historicist' view?



Pastor Klein, see Javajedi's response. That's about how I would have summed it up. But as CalvinandHodges pointed out, it is possible to see an element of historical "illustration" whilst maintaining recapitulation. FNL is particularly good on the 1260 days/years. I personally hold to recapitulation so far as exegesis is concerned, but allow for historical identification in terms of application. Some of the older Puritan commentaries will make this distinction, e.g., James Durham. If you correlate what all the historicist commentators say on a given vision, you discover that the symbols can apply to multiple events. That is because the symbolism of Revelation is general enough to allow for numerous fulfilments throughout the history of the church. Blessings!


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Of course the biggest shocker of all would be for you to adopt Gaffin's eschatological views .



No can do. Even in my apologete postmillennial days (I am still post, btw) I always said I would adopt premillennialism before amillennialism.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Pastor Klein, see Javajedi's response. That's about how I would have summed it up. But as CalvinandHodges pointed out, it is possible to see an element of historical "illustration" whilst maintaining recapitulation. FNL is particularly good on the 1260 days/years. I personally hold to recapitulation so far as exegesis is concerned, but allow for historical identification in terms of application. Some of the older Puritan commentaries will make this distinction, e.g., James Durham. If you correlate what all the historicist commentators say on a given vision, you discover that the symbols can apply to multiple events. That is because the symbolism of Revelation is general enough to allow for numerous fulfilments throughout the history of the church. Blessings!



Is Francis Nigel Lee a good place to start to understand recapitulation? Or something else?


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Is Francis Nigel Lee a good place to start to understand recapitulation? Or something else?



FNL's good for historicism. For recapitulation the standard works are Hendriksen's More than Conqueror's, Warfield's 'Millennium and the Apocalypse' in "Biblical Doctrines," and Milligan's Commentary on Revelation. Hendriksen is somewhat pessimistic as an amillennialist. Warfield is generally considered postmillennial or optimistic amillennial.


----------



## Scott

joshua said:


> It's precisely these kinds of threads that humble me and show me my utter ignorance and incapacity to take in and retain such complexities in theology. Woe is me.


No prob. Use this formula and you will sound like you are in the know:

"The main problem with the (premil / postmil / amil) position is that as some forms take the (futurist / historicist / idealist) approach, the system as a whole exhibits an an utter inability to account for (insert any chapter title of the Westminster Confession)."

You can choose any of the words in the parentheticals and you will be part of the fraternity.



Example: The main problem with the amil position is that as some forms take the idealist approach, the system as a whole exhibits an an utter inability to account for God's Covenant with Man.


----------



## Theogenes

Jacob,
Check out this site about H. Grattan Guinness' works. He was a premil. Historicist and with the Guinness name you have to sit up and take notice 
His book "Romanism and the Reformation" is excellent.
http://www.lastdays.ca/Guinness/

Jim


----------



## RamistThomist

thanks, but I was looking for historical premil, not historicism.


----------



## Theogenes

Also check out Guinness's comments on the "three events" in 1Cor. 15. He makes some compelling statements. 
http://www.lastdays.ca/Guinness/Approaching/aeota3.htm


----------



## JM

Links of interest:

- Evidence for Premillennialism by H. Grattan Guinness
- Horae Apocalypticae, by E.B. Elliott


----------



## KMK

JM said:


> - Horae Apocalypticae, by E.B. Elliott



I am very interested in this work. Has anyone read the whole thing and what did you think?


----------



## JM

> *Description*: This four volume set is respected by many as a scholarly work on eschatology. It will be especially valuable in our day as it absolutely destroys the Jesuit inspired preterist system by conclusively proving a late date for the writing of the book of Revelation.
> 
> All the major Reformers and all the major Reformation creeds and confessions adopted the historicist position – and it is this position that Elliott so skillfully defends. Included in Horae Apocalypticae you will also find a very useful historical survey of who held which positions concerning eschatology, much history on the Roman empire (and its interaction with Christianity), how the Reformation, Islam, etc. were prophesied in the Apocalypse, a world chronology according to the Hebrew Scriptures (which would make the Earth 6127 years old), patristic views of prophecy, the beast and his mark (666) revealed, and much more. The Papacy is also shown to be the apocalyptic antichrist, which was a standard position among the Reformers.
> 
> This set is part of SWRB's Rare Hardcover Bound Photocopy Collection. It is also available in a rare cerlox bound photocopy edition at a lower price for US$79.99.



link


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> There is nothing neo-platonic about it. Written to encourage saints in tribulation the Apocalypse naturally abounds with "other-worldly" themes and presents kingdom victory in spiritual terms.



If anything, Revelation, like the rest of the Bible, repudiates Neo-platonism and abounds with an affirmation of creation. The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth. The goal of the saints' lives is not to escape creation, but to live in the restored and renewed creation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Draught Horse said:


> If anything, Revelation, like the rest of the Bible, repudiates Neo-platonism and abounds with an affirmation of creation. The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth. The goal of the saints' lives is not to escape creation, but to live in the restored and renewed creation.



Do you know of any view which teaches otherwise?


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> Do you know of any view which teaches otherwise?



Maybe. My point was that said passage denies neo-platonism and "otherworldly" escapes.


----------



## Puritanhead

Read George Ladd.

Though, I think kingdom views are arguably more important than millennial views. I teeter between historical premillennialism and amillennialism.


----------



## JonathanHunt

joshua said:


> It's precisely these kinds of threads that humble me and show me my utter ignorance and incapacity to take in and retain such complexities in theology. Woe is me.




Hey Josh

Jesus Christ is coming back. He is going to judge everyone. Many are going to hell. His people will inherit the new heavens and the new earth and will reign with Him forever in glory.

Forget the complexities. They are irrelevant to the thousands of lost souls around you. They don't need to know the complexities. They need to know that the judge is coming!

(PS this is not to demean those of you who enjoy eschatological debate!)

JH


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Draught Horse said:


> Maybe. My point was that said passage denies neo-platonism and "otherworldly" escapes.



Where do you go when you die?


----------



## etexas

Draught Horse said:


> Well, historical premill anyway. I just listened to a fantsatic set of messages by Russell Moore.
> http://www.henryinstitute.org/audio_view.php?cid=10
> 
> He is historic premill. I still see a few big problems in premillennialism, but his exposition on Kingdom, as well as his critiques of amillennialism (e.g., having a static and neo-platonic view of heaven and kingdom) were pretty good.


Will this involve a 1917 Scofield?


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> Where do you go when you die?



That's not my point. I should have been more clear. The ultimate place is the new earth, not on the clouds playing harps. You go to the presence of Christ when you die (or for a similar, but different view--the saints under the altar--Revelation 6).


----------



## RamistThomist

Scott said:


> Jacob: As an FYI, if you do cross over you can get most of the Left Behind books cheap on eBay or half.com now. Don't pay retail.



In all seriousness, I have read the first 10 (please don't ask why). A big problem I have is that they are not literal enough. They make the "beast" to be an Eastern European. Come on now! I am going to write a fiction series loosely based on historic premil. It is going to be called "The War of the Dragon." The beast--or the dragon elsewhere--is going to have scales and all!


----------



## Ivan

Draught Horse said:


> In all seriousness, I have read the first 10 (please don't ask why). A big problem I have is that they are not literal enough. They make the "beast" to be an Eastern European. Come on now! I am going to write a fiction series loosely based on historic premil. It is going to be called "The War of the Dragon." The beast--or the dragon elsewhere--is going to have scales and all!



Cool. I'll read it.


----------



## Ivan

JonathanHunt said:


> Hey Josh
> 
> Jesus Christ is coming back. He is going to judge everyone. Many are going to hell. His people will inherit the new heavens and the new earth and will reign with Him forever in glory.
> 
> Forget the complexities. They are irrelevant to the thousands of lost souls around you. They don't need to know the complexities. They need to know that the judge is coming!
> 
> (PS this is not to demean those of you who enjoy eschatological debate!)
> 
> JH



I agree with the main body and the p.s. of your post, Jonathan.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Draught Horse said:


> That's not my point. I should have been more clear. The ultimate place is the new earth, not on the clouds playing harps. You go to the presence of Christ when you die (or for a similar, but different view--the saints under the altar--Revelation 6).



Which view is looking forward to playing harps on the clouds? 

My point in prodding you with these little questions is simply the fact that there is an "otherworldly" aspect to our Christian life and eschatology. It is unavoidable, no matter how afraid of neo-platonism you may be. This present world is perishing. We do not belong to it. We belong to the new creation. So long as this old world continues to exist, we will not fit in. Our hope is in Christ, who dwells in heaven currently. It was Paul who said our citizenship is in heaven (i.e. not here). So, if all camps agree that there is an otherworldly dimension to the Christian life and hope, is it really the "otherworldly" aspects of amil eschatology that bothers you? Or is it something else?


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> Which view is looking forward to playing harps on the clouds?
> 
> My point in prodding you with these little questions is simply the fact that there is an "otherworldly" aspect to our Christian life and eschatology.



If by "world" you mean the system of values in opposition to Christ, I agree. However, Genesis 1-2 rejoices in creation. Revelation longs for the restored creation. Your amillennialists Kuyper and Hoekema agree with me. Even saying that we live in the renewed creation reinforces my point: we are living in "earthy" (albeit restored) paradise, even if it is after the conflagration. A gnostic or neo-platonist, by very definition, cannot assent to that.




> It is unavoidable, no matter how afraid of neo-platonism you may be. This present world is perishing. We do not belong to it. We belong to the new creation.



Agreed. That was my point. We do not live in "heaven." Heaven is important, but it is not the end of the world



> So long as this old world continues to exist, we will not fit in. Our hope is in Christ, who dwells in heaven currently. It was Paul who said our citizenship is in heaven (i.e. not here).



Quote the rest of the verse. That citizenship comes down to earth. The very nature of citizenship in the Roman world was that we do not return to the "capital," but we colonize and bring the values of the capital to the areas. 



> So, if all camps agree that there is an otherworldly dimension to the Christian life and hope, is it really the "otherworldly" aspects of amil eschatology that bothers you? Or is it something else?



There are "earthy" aspects in the Bible that the amillennialist has yet to deal with: Isaiah 2, 9, 11, 65:20, Psalm 72, Zechariah 12, 14, etc. Merely to say that we are going to live an "otherworldly" existence doesn't make these verses go away. To "spiritualize" them is to assume what one is trying to prove.

While I hate using sources or playing footnote tag in discussions, if I may quote my hero, Carl F. H. Henry:

The case for a millennial kingdom rests on three arguments: 1)The Old Testament prophets speak so emphatically of a coming universal age of earthly peace and justice that to transfer this vision wholly to a transcendnet superterrestial kingdom is unjustifiable; 2) because the historical fall of Adam involves all human history in its consequences it requires an historical redemption that extends 'far as the curse is found' to complete Christ's victory over sin; 3) the most natural interpretation of Revelation 20 seems to suggest an earthly, millennial reign prior to the inauguration of God's eternal kingdom" (Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 6 volumes. [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983; reprint, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999], 6: 504).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

"Bradford",
The second coming/judgment and restoration is a historical event, therefore there is still a historical resolution to the problem of sin according to the amil scheme.


----------



## MW

Puritan Sailor said:


> "Bradford",
> The second coming/judgment and restoration is a historical event, therefore there is still a historical resolution to the problem of sin according to the amil scheme.





What would the kingdom parables have sounded like if they were properly understood by the historicist Jews? Neo-platonic idealism, I suppose.


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> "Bradford",
> The second coming/judgment and restoration is a historical event, therefore there is still a historical resolution to the problem of sin according to the amil scheme.



True, but I would cautiously venture more. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that, but I would posit the necessity of the millennium (as I understand it and not as the post/amil understands--that sounds funny me disagreeing with postmillennialism) to account for the texts I mentioned above.

Rev Winzer,


> What would the kingdom parables have sounded like if they were properly understood by the historicist Jews? Neo-platonic idealism, I suppose.



I am not an expert on the worldview of Second Temple Judaism, but if anything, the Jews were indicted for having too much of an "earthly" understanding of the rule of the Messiah. And either the Second Helvetic Confession or the Belgic Confession (I forget) condemns the earthiness of Jewish eschatology. Whether they were right or wrong to do so, the very fact that they did precludes a neo-platonic understanding of it.


----------



## MW

Draught Horse said:


> I am not an expert on the worldview of Second Temple Judaism, but if anything, the Jews were indicted for having too much of an "earthly" understanding of the rule of the Messiah. And either the Second Helvetic Confession or the Belgic Confession (I forget) condemns the earthiness of Jewish eschatology. Whether they were right or wrong to do so, the very fact that they did precludes a neo-platonic understanding of it.



The scenario as I perceive it is, that the Jews understood their OT according to a literal-historicist paradigm, whilst our Lord emphasised the spirituality of the kingdom and the fulfilment of the OT in terms of the eschatological world to come, of which He is the embodiment. After the ascension of Christ, that embodiment is now found, (1) locally, in heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father; (2) mystically, in the members of Christ on earth. Any sound interpretation of the kingdom teaching of Scripture must give due attention to these two realities. By definition, they are not realities of sight, but realities of faith, as is clearly explained by the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. chap. 4, 5. Blessings!


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> The scenario as I perceive it is, that the Jews understood their OT according to a literal-historicist paradigm, whilst our Lord emphasised the spirituality of the kingdom and the fulfilment of the OT in terms of the eschatological world to come, of which He is the embodiment. After the ascension of Christ, that embodiment is now found, (1) locally, in heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father; (2) mystically, in the members of Christ on earth. Any sound interpretation of the kingdom teaching of Scripture must give due attention to these two realities. By definition, they are not realities of sight, but realities of faith, as is clearly explained by the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. chap. 4, 5. Blessings!



I don't deny that. My contention is that Isaiah 11, 65:20, etc. are best understood as referring to the space-time cosmos. 

My objection to neo-platonism is that it posits a "chain of being" continuum, which I find problematic on biblical and philosophical grounds.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Draught Horse said:


> I don't deny that. My contention is that Isaiah 11, 65:20, etc. are best understood as referring to the space-time cosmos.
> 
> My objection to neo-platonism is that it posits a "chain of being" continuum, which I find problematic on biblical and philosophical grounds.



No one is espousing the chain of being nonsense. Second, for you to take Isa. 65:20 literally as a millenialial reign would introduce death into the "new heavens and a new earth" (vs. 17). How can there be no more weeping or crying (vs. 19) in the millennium if there is still death? Apparently in the millennium Christ has not conquered death yet? How is that a full historical resolution to the problem of sin? Revelation makes it clear that death is abolished in the new heavens and earth. So to take Isa. 65:20 literally introduces more problems than answers.


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> No one is espousing the chain of being nonsense. Second, for you to take Isa. 65:20 literally as a millenialial reign would introduce death into the "new heavens and a new earth" (vs. 17).



Even as a postmillenniast, I had trouble with this verse. Bottom line--and I guess this would apply to all sides--there is death in this passage. We need some conceptual paradigm that explains it.




> How can there be no more weeping or crying (vs. 19) in the millennium if there is still death?



That's a good question.



> Apparently in the millennium Christ has not conquered death yet?


I think all sides would agree with that. I would say no, since there will be a rebellion at the end of the millennium.



> How is that a full historical resolution to the problem of sin?



It's not a full resolution, I grant that, but I don't think it need be.



> Revelation makes it clear that death is abolished in the new heavens and earth. So to take Isa. 65:20 literally introduces more problems than answers.



I don't see any legitimate figurative approach to taking babies dying. While I don't like resorting to symbolism and figurative language to avoid hard passages, I don't mind it as long as we don't turn the passage on its head (e.g., nuancing death to mean "not death").


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Draught Horse said:


> I don't see any legitimate figurative approach to taking babies dying. While I don't like resorting to symbolism and figurative language to avoid hard passages, I don't mind it as long as we don't turn the passage on its head (e.g., nuancing death to mean "not death").



Jacob, Isaiah is saying that babies will not die anymore. The emphasis is on life. And we must nuance death to mean "not death" here because Revelation clearly says that in the new heavens and earth there will be no death. You are robbing Christ of his victory in the new heavens and new earth by making Isaiah contradict Revelation regarding the new heavens and earth. They are speaking about the same thing. Isaiah must be refering to the fulfillment of promises in the terms the Jews of his day could understand. Compare this prophecy to the curses in Dueteronomy for instance. Revelation is speaking to a world influenced by Greek ideas and speaks to them in terms they may understand.


----------



## RamistThomist

Perhaps that could be so, although I think the force of what I was saying is still valid. Anyway, my argument doesn't hinge on that. Btw, I found a reformed theologian who denied that we live in the new creation because it was "earthy." I might email you the information since I don't want to go public with it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Draught Horse said:


> Perhaps that could be so, although I think the force of what I was saying is still valid. Anyway, my argument doesn't hinge on that. Btw, I found a reformed theologian who denied that we live in the new creation because it was "earthy." I might email you the information since I don't want to go public with it.



"A" reformed theologian? Come on. I'd be glad to have the reference but it will take more than that to pin Amils down in a "playing harps on the clouds" view. They simply don't believe that. They believe the historic time/space resolution to sin and death is the Second Coming when all things are made new (not just some things made new for a thousand years then the rest later).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Where is the millennium in Pauline eschatology?


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> "A" reformed theologian? Come on. I'd be glad to have the reference but it will take more than that to pin Amils down in a "playing harps on the clouds" view. They simply don't believe that. They believe the historic time/space resolution to sin and death is the Second Coming when all things are made new (not just some things made new for a thousand years then the rest later).



Well, you had asked a while back "who" believed that. Strictly speaking, "a" answers that.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Draught Horse said:


> Well, you had asked a while back "who" believed that. Strictly speaking, "a" answers that.


----------



## martin foulner

what do you think will come quicker Ken Gentry's commentary on Revelation or the end of the millennium


----------

