# The Error and Danger of Premillenialism



## Rescued (Apr 5, 2020)

Perhaps many Christians don't give it much thought, but the more I study the subject of eschatology, the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church. It seems to have gained some ground in reformed churches too. I believe that Reformed Christians need to be more vocal in defending the truth about last things.

Can anyone who sees this reiterate what I'm saying?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 5, 2020)

Most Reformed Christians I know are adamantly opposed to premillennialism. Unless you mean that Reformed Christians generally shy away from directly teaching eschatology. That might be true. I've heard maybe 8 sermons on eschatology in 17 years of being in a Reformed church.

I was even in a Reconstructionist church and even they didn't really teach it that much.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 5, 2020)

Yes I would say it boils down to that, that we shy away from directly teaching it. The guilty silence I think allows the non-reformed to continue in their error and it robs us of much of what the apostles communicate by the Spirit about watchfulness and looking to the Lord's coming.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 5, 2020)

Rescued said:


> The guilty silence I think allows the non-reformed to continue in their error



I don't know how true that is. I don't think the fate of eschatology depends on the Reformed churches "getting the word out" so that Baptists can take their cue from us.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 5, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Perhaps many Christians don't give it much thought, but the more I study the subject of eschatology, the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church. It seems to have gained some ground in reformed churches too. I believe that Reformed Christians need to be more vocal in defending the truth about last things.
> 
> Can anyone who sees this reiterate what I'm saying?


Welcome to the board; if you have not already done so when you see this post, please fix yourself a signature in accord with board policy so folks know how to address you. See here for how: https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/


----------



## rookie (Apr 5, 2020)

I listened to an entire series by Voddie Baucham on Revelation (available on Sermon Audio). Great series and will give much context geographically, culturally and politically on what was going on during the days John wrote the book. His arguments are very hard to find loopholes in.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Rescued (Apr 5, 2020)

I listened to it as well but I reject his idea that the things spoken of in Revelation are not largely referring to the papal, Roman beast/antichrist. I hold firmly to the historicist understanding of prophecy.


----------



## Jo_Was (Apr 5, 2020)

I think many lay-people are influenced by non-Reformed thought in a few matters; dispensationalism is one of those that has leaked a bit into Reformed circles. I wouldn't say it is largely that it is there, but often there are lay persons within congregations that come from different backgrounds and don't really know that dispensationalism is not the default or even dominant view in the church, and it can be eye opening for people to be educated on that matter. I eschewed talking about Revelation and the end times in my early days coming into the Reformed faith, because I grew up in a heavy dispensational setting that sat uneasy with me. But it was a helpful Sunday School series from Calvin Keller at an OPC in Chattanooga that really helped me to see that there was a whole theological discussion I just didn't know. I think the average, random person in the pew that you survey in an ARP or PCA church might not know what they think on the matter. That is of course conjecture. Many evangelicals at large (not just Reformed) have been so permeated with dispensationalism that they wholesale may not even recognize other possibilities.


----------



## Don Kistler (Apr 6, 2020)

And yet the late great James Boice held to a dispensational eschatology. He said he came to that position after studying the minor prophets.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 6, 2020)

Don Kistler said:


> And yet the late great James Boice held to a dispensational eschatology. He said he came to that position after studying the minor prophets.


I thought Dr Boice was Historic Premillennial? In that case he would have rejected Dispensationalism. In any case, one cannot subscribe to the Westminster Standards and be Dispensational.


----------



## 149-deleted (Apr 6, 2020)

I think there are many premillenialists who are very watchful and whose understanding of eschatology drives them to greater holiness and zeal for God's work. You must remember that even the disciple of a disciple of John the Beloved, Irenaeus, seems to hold some premillennial views. I am myself amillennial in my views, but haven't found that eschatology -- except in certain cases of dispensationalism and full preterism -- is a good determinator of life and holiness.

I think an amillennial view is the right one (otherwise, why would I hold it?). I have had long discussions with brethren who hold other views, and I think their understanding of the Scriptures would improve if they saw things differently. But if I were to argue from effects, then I know the argument is lost as they are men so holy in their life and walk that I should only embarass myself.

From what I know of the evangelical churches of the English West Midlands, at least, premillenialism, postmillenialism and amillenialism often happily coexist -- not in a state of ceasefire, but as a matter of secondary importance often discussed and studied. But I would also second what @Jo_Was said: quite a lot of people may have absorbed a view by osmosis, or haven't actually formed one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chad Hutson (Apr 6, 2020)

Rescued said:


> the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church.


I was raised in dispensationalism, and in certain areas of this country there is nothing else taught. The OP is correct in stating that this view has had great effects in the evangelical world. When I tell the dispensationalists in my circle of influence that the doctrine is only about 150 years old, they are usually surprised to hear that. Most of them think this doctrine was taught from the infancy of the church.
My biggest problem with dispensationalism is the disconnect between the OT and the NT (Israel and the church). They relegate large swaths of the OT to some distant point in the future after the church age ends, effectively rendering the much of the OT meaningless in the current age.
They also overemphasize the Mosaic Covenant (call it a covenant of works), while minimalizing the Abrahamic Covenant. 
But as for eschatology, there seems to be an unhealthy preoccupation with the Rapture, a morbid fascination with Revelation as a roadmap to what non-Christians will endure, a misunderstanding of Daniel's prophecies, and so on. If you want to gain an audience among these people, announce a series on Revelation. If you want to hear crickets within the congregation, announce a series on Romans.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Apr 6, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Perhaps many Christians don't give it much thought, but the more I study the subject of eschatology, the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church. It seems to have gained some ground in reformed churches too. I believe that Reformed Christians need to be more vocal in defending the truth about last things.



Morning friend,

What are some of the "effects" of premillenialism you have observed? How have you seen this eschatological view gain ground in reformed churches? Can you provide some specific examples?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 6, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I thought Dr Boice was Historic Premillennial? In that case he would have rejected Dispensationalism. In any case, one cannot subscribe to the Westminster Standards and be Dispensational.



Yes, he was historic premil. As far as I am aware, paedobaptism and Dispensationalism are violently incompatible.


----------



## B.L. (Apr 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> As far as I am aware, paedobaptism and Dispensationalism are violently incompatible.



Here's an interesting article for your reading pleasure.

https://frame-poythress.org/presbyterianism-and-dispensationalism/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 6, 2020)

BLM said:


> Here's an interesting article for your reading pleasure.
> 
> https://frame-poythress.org/presbyterianism-and-dispensationalism/



I skimmed it. Does it contradict what I said anywhere? It didn’t appear to. I was aware that many of the original Dispensationalists were at first Presbyterian. However, that in no way means that the two views are compatible, or that the latter logically leads to the former.

Just asking for clarification as to why you posted the article.


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 6, 2020)

One ancillary effect of Premillennialism I see is people expecting God’s wrath (i.e the 7 seals) to be stored up and released at the end of the age. If some catastrophe is eventually ended without apocalyptic results, it is glossed over.

In the book, Triumph of the Lamb, I recall the author, Dennis Johnson (who is Amillennialist) making the point that the seals of wrath in the first half of the book of Revelation are cyclical - not a one time administration. (He later suggests the bowls of wrath in the latter part of the book to be the ultimate pouring out of wrath). After being persuaded by amillenialism and reading his book, I now view events, such as this current situation, with a lot more Biblical context.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Apr 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Just asking for clarification as to why you posted the article.



I found it interesting is all. Vern Poythress has written quite a bit on dispensationalism and I have always appreciated his voice on this topic. I don't think the content of the article contradicts what you wrote in any way.

One thing I would be interested in learning more about is the recovery of covenant theology within Presbyterian denominations. I had heard that the doctrine had to be recovered and that for a period in time it was all but forgotten. I believe it was Edmund Clowney who said his first Bible given to him by his Presbyterian Church was a Scofield Reference Bible, which I found fascinating. This always made me want to read more about the influence of dispensationalism in Presbyterian Churches during the last century. Perhaps a historian on the board can shed some light on this.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Delahunt (Apr 6, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I thought Dr Boice was Historic Premillennial? In that case he would have rejected Dispensationalism. In any case, one cannot subscribe to the Westminster Standards and be Dispensational.



Having listened to Dr. Boice's disciple Dr. Richard Phillips (an amillennialist) describe Dr. Boice's position, it sounds like Dr. Boice began as a Presbyterian dispensationalist, then moved to Historic Premillennialism. Hope that helps.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> making the point that the seals of wrath in the first half of the book of Revelation are cyclical - not a one time administration.



That's also widely shared by historic premils. The advantage is that it is a poetic reading and explains a lot. I do think there are sequential difficulties with it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2020)

As to whether premil creates a doom and gloom view on society. If I were amil, I would still be fairly pessimistic and expect our AI overlords to crack down on us.


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's also widely shared by historic premils. The advantage is that it is a poetic reading and explains a lot. I do think there are sequential difficulties with it.


I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps that is the case with some Premils, but the general view I sense many Premils have of the events described in Revelation is very futuristic. They see all of it, prophetically, sometime in the future and to occur very suddenly and rapidly. The Amils view the events described in Revelation as currently happening and progressively increasing in intensity.


----------



## Delahunt (Apr 6, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> ...The Amils view the events described in Revelation as currently happening and progressively increasing in intensity.



What would be some good commentaries on this? I've got Hendrickson's More than Conquerors, what are others (from the basic to more advanced) that cover Revelation from a more Amil perspective?


----------



## bookslover (Apr 6, 2020)

Chad Hutson said:


> I was raised in dispensationalism, and in certain areas of this country there is nothing else taught. The OP is correct in stating that this view has had great effects in the evangelical world.



No, the OP didn't mention dispensationalism at all. The OP is concerned with premillennialism. Not the same thing at all.

Several posts in this thread show the typical confusion between premillennialism and dispensationalism. When people hear the former, they
almost automatically assume the latter.

But they are (or should be) two completely different topics. Premillennialism was around long, long before dispensationalism showed up in the 19th century. There were premillennialists at the Westminster Assembly in the 1640s (William Twisse, for example).

Let's stop confusing the two, even if you disagree with premillennialism.

_Historic_ premillennialism good.
_Dispensational_ premillennialism bad.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 6, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> What would be some good commentaries on this? I've got Hendrickson's More than Conquerors, what are others (from the basic to more advanced) that cover Revelation from a more Amil perspective?


Aside from _Triumph of the Lamb_ by Dennis Johnson, I would strongly recommend _A Case for Amillennialism _by Kim Riddlebarger.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rescued (Apr 6, 2020)

BLM said:


> Morning friend,
> 
> What are some of the "effects" of premillenialism you have observed? How have you seen this eschatological view gain ground in reformed churches? Can you provide some specific examples?



Well the more I study eschatology, the more I see the whole direction of scripture being eschatological. The looking for that blessed hope, the revealing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, the consummation of all things. But premillenialism speaks of a future age of 1000 years after the 2nd coming with an earth populated by a Jewish remnant who were converted during the supposed 7 year tribulation, and that is, after the church is raptured off the earth. So right off the bat, we divide the 2nd coming into 2 parts, a secret rapture of the church and then the actual 2nd coming. And so after the rapture, which would be seen by all that large numbers of people just disappeared off the earth, it could be calculated that 7 years later, Christ would come in the clouds to judgment. So to say God will go back to dealing with national Israel again with a rebuilt physical temple, Premillenialism once again makes a distinction between the Jew and Gentile, when they have both been called into one body, and says that God will go back to dealing with types and shadows.

Premillenialism ignores the fact that the kingdom is already here in the church, in the elect and that Christ is reigning now over His people. It also blunts the sword of prophecy in that it ignores the fact that the papacy is that antichrist warned about in the scriptures. Unfaithful ministers everywhere commit spiritual fornication with the great whore by practicing some of her false forms of worship and with their willing ignorance of her identity and character. John said that her blasphemy is written right across her forehead, because to the spiritually discerning it's obvious who the beast is. One simply has to pick up their history books and read the documentation of the woman drunken with the blood of the saints.

Other folks in this thread have already answered the who in the Reformed circles by mentioning just one example, Dr. Boice. One could also say Dr. MacArthur, even though he's not really reformed. Men of great influence.

Failure to warn God's people of the identity of antichrist is willful ignorance. Also, to ascribe to the future and a future age that which nobody would ever see until the end of time defeats the purpose of the Revelation, which was a book of comfort to the saints in all ages, and that which would give discernment and understanding to God's people in the midst of persecution.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 6, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> What would be some good commentaries on this? I've got Hendrickson's More than Conquerors, what are others (from the basic to more advanced) that cover Revelation from a more Amil perspective?



G. K. Beale's commentary is the go-to for the Amil camp. Get his condensed edition, which is still quite sizeable.

For eschatology from the Amil framework:
https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/the-promise-of-the-future-venema.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2020)

Rescued said:


> after the church is raptured off the earth.



You are confusing premillennialism with dispensationalism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Premillenialism ignores the fact that the kingdom is already here in the church, in the elect and that Christ is reigning now over His people.



Darrell Bock, a premillennialist, disagrees with you. As does Craig Blaising.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> As far as I am aware, paedobaptism and Dispensationalism are violently incompatible.


Actually many early dispensationalists were paedobaptist. Lewis. S. Chafer wrote one of the early dispensational systematic theologies. He was paedobaptist. Many of the editors of the first Scofield Bible were paedobaptists.

Of course one can argue that dispensationalism is incompatible with the best paedobaptist thought. Perhaps it is best to argue that some early dispensationalists had a watered down paedobaptism. If one fully grasps the rich doctrine of ch 7 of the WCF, they could not be dispensational.


----------



## Chad Hutson (Apr 6, 2020)

bookslover said:


> No, the OP didn't mention dispensationalism at all. The OP is concerned with premillennialism. Not the same thing at all.


Duly noted. Having read down through the posts before I replied, I crossed up the OP with other responses. I should have quoted one of the posts dealing with dispensationalism.
I am very aware of historic premillennialism and its difference with dispensational premillennialism.
I made a mistake...probably from the fatigue of running like a chicken with its head cut off while trying to pastor a flock that can't gather, tend to the sick and dying, and remotely instruct the Christians under my charge.
I beg your forgiveness and ask for your patience.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are confusing premillennialism with dispensationalism.



Yes. See my post #24.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 6, 2020)

Chad Hutson said:


> Duly noted. Having read down through the posts before I replied, I crossed up the OP with other responses. I should have quoted one of the posts dealing with dispensationalism.
> I am very aware of historic premillennialism and its difference with dispensational premillennialism.
> I made a mistake...probably from the fatigue of running like a chicken with its head cut off while trying to pastor a flock that can't gather, tend to the sick and dying, and remotely instruct the Christians under my charge.
> I beg your forgiveness and ask for your patience.



There's nothing to forgive, Chad. Honest mistake.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Darrell Bock, a premillennialist, disagrees with you. As does Craig Blaising.



They still hold to the false teaching that after Christ returns there will be a literal 1000 kingdom prior to the final judgment, do they not?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2020)

Rescued said:


> They still hold to the false teaching that after Christ returns there will be a literal 1000 kingdom prior to the final judgment, do they not?



That's the fallacy of a loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife?

But removing the logical fallacy from your question, I think we can approach it this way:
1) Yes, they hold to a millennial kingdom.
2) Nonetheless, Bock and Blaising are very clear that the kingdom begins with Jesus.


----------



## Citizen (Apr 6, 2020)

Going back to the original post, are there tangible inherent dangers in simply subscribing to a premillennial eschatology? Even if we can demonstrate that it is false, is it fair to suggest that it would necessarily lead to some horrible result? 

Not suggesting that a misguided eschatology could be used to support dangerous theology and action, but think the same could be said for an amillennial outlook (e.g. Antisemitism).


----------



## spunky01 (Apr 7, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I thought Dr Boice was Historic Premillennial? In that case he would have rejected Dispensationalism. In any case, one cannot subscribe to the Westminster Standards and be Dispensational.


Before moving to Historical Premillennialism, Dr. Boice did hold to dispensationalism. At least with regard to eschatology. He even wrote a book with a dispensational view before his switch and persuasion to historic premill. The book is called "The Last and Future World". It is out of print now.


----------



## Delahunt (Apr 7, 2020)

Citizen said:


> Going back to the original post, are there tangible inherent dangers in simply subscribing to a premillennial eschatology? Even if we can demonstrate that it is false, is it fair to suggest that it would necessarily lead to some horrible result?
> 
> Not suggesting that a misguided eschatology could be used to support dangerous theology and action, but think the same could be said for an amillennial outlook (e.g. Antisemitism).



Yes I am curious to hear the dangers of holding to a premillennial eschatology, given that this is my current position (although quite sympathetic to the amillennial position).


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Citizen said:


> Going back to the original post, are there tangible inherent dangers in simply subscribing to a premillennial eschatology? Even if we can demonstrate that it is false, is it fair to suggest that it would necessarily lead to some horrible result?
> 
> Not suggesting that a misguided eschatology could be used to support dangerous theology and action, but think the same could be said for an amillennial outlook (e.g. Antisemitism).



Exactly. We can look at each view and see how it leads to error.

1) Postmillennialism --> Social Gospel Liberalism
2) Amillennialism --> Liberal Allegorism; anti-semitism
3) Premillennialism --> Sum of all evils in human history

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

Don Kistler said:


> And yet the late great James Boice held to a dispensational eschatology. He said he came to that position after studying the minor prophets.



This is conclusion one comes to when they allow the OT tell us what the NT has to mean. It should be the other way around. The OT was type and shadow, the NT is the substance. Clear passages from Christ and His apostles tell us what the OT prophecies have to mean. Passages in the OT that speak of a kingdom on earth are referring to the new heaven and earth, not a halfway renewed earth during some future Jewish dispensation.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exactly. We can look at each view and see how it leads to error.
> 
> 1) Postmillennialism --> Social Gospel Liberalism
> 2) Amillennialism --> Liberal Allegorism; anti-semitism
> 3) Premillennialism --> Sum of all evils in human history



Amillenialism only leads to anti-semitism if you don't even understand your own position as an amillenialist. True, historic amillenialists understand that the promises made to Israel were intended by God to be realized and fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Apostle makes it clear that all who therefore are in Christ by faith are the true Israel and the inheritors of the promises, both Jew and Gentile. God has broken down the middle wall of partition and made the two peoples into one body, never to be separated again. For this to be undone would require the dividing of Christ Himself in two.

"Is Christ divided?" 

I think not.


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exactly. We can look at each view and see how it leads to error.
> 
> 1) Postmillennialism --> Social Gospel Liberalism
> 2) Amillennialism --> Liberal Allegorism; anti-semitism
> 3) Premillennialism --> Sum of all evils in human history


Amillennialism --> Acceptance Christ is reigning and looking forward to immediate and eternal marriage with our Lord after death.

Premillennialism dangers: Undermining Christ's current reign (Matthew 28:18), confusion about going back to signs and shadows, failure to recognize the on-going warnings and signs prophesied, misplaced measures to overly protecting national Israel (*not antisemitism), and misleading Jews (and others) about their future and salvation.

*In my opinion, true antisemitism is deceiving a Jew by asserting that someday their nation will be restored to power and return to the Old Covenant practices.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Amillennialism --> Acceptance Christ is reigning and looking forward to immediate and eternal marriage with our Lord after death.
> 
> Premillennialism dangers: Undermining Christ's current reign (Matthew 28:18), confusion about going back to signs and shadows, failure to recognize the on-going warnings and signs prophesied, misplaced measures to overly protecting national Israel (*not antisemitism), and misleading Jews (and others) about their future and salvation.
> 
> *In my opinion, true antisemitism is deceiving a Jew by asserting that someday their nation will be restored to power and return to the Old Covenant practices.



My post was tongue-in-cheek, noting you can play the same game with any of the views.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Amillenialism only leads to anti-semitism if you don't even understand your own position as an amillenialist. True, historic amillenialists understand that the promises made to Israel were intended by God to be realized and fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Apostle makes it clear that all who therefore are in Christ by faith are the true Israel and the inheritors of the promises, both Jew and Gentile. God has broken down the middle wall of partition and made the two peoples into one body, never to be separated again. For this to be undone would require the dividing of Christ Himself in two.
> 
> "Is Christ divided?"
> 
> I think not.



I don't think you grasped my post. I wasn't saying that amillennialism is anti-semitic (though I do think many partial preterists are). I was simply noting that if we are critiquing a view based on how people down the road applied that view, then any charge is fair game.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 7, 2020)

The thing about eschatology is this:

The church, over the last nearly 2,000 years, has teased out the three basic positions - premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism - _from the same biblical material.
_
This fact should serve as a hint that we don't know as much about the subject as we like to think we do. So, whatever position you hold to, hold it sincerely, but hold it lightly, because we could _all_ be wrong.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 7, 2020)

BLM said:


> I found it interesting is all. Vern Poythress has written quite a bit on dispensationalism and I have always appreciated his voice on this topic. I don't think the content of the article contradicts what you wrote in any way.
> 
> One thing I would be interested in learning more about is the recovery of covenant theology within Presbyterian denominations. I had heard that the doctrine had to be recovered and that for a period in time it was all but forgotten. I believe it was Edmund Clowney who said his first Bible given to him by his Presbyterian Church was a Scofield Reference Bible, which I found fascinating. This always made me want to read more about the influence of dispensationalism in Presbyterian Churches during the last century. Perhaps a historian on the board can shed some light on this.


 Presbyterians never "lost" covenant theology, at least not the strain that comes through old Princeton and the modern seminaries that retained that teaching. Indeed, the establishment of a Biblical Theology Chair at Princeton ~1898 did a great deal to increase the church's understanding on the topic and was at the root of the teaching of people like O Palmer Robertson and Greg Beale. If anything, the contours of covenant theology were clarified as the twentieth century progressed.

[QUOTE="Rescued, post: 1241511, member: 
Failure to warn God's people of the identity of antichrist is willful ignorance. Also, to ascribe to the future and a future age that which nobody would ever see until the end of time defeats the purpose of the Revelation, which was a book of comfort to the saints in all ages, and that which would give discernment and understanding to God's people in the midst of persecution.
[/QUOTE]
Such a perspective ignores the tremendous sufferings of the early church, before the pope was established. Peter and John in their epistles were desperately trying to preserve and prepare the church for suffering. The antichrist John identifies is anyone or any institution that attacks God's people. The pope in certain ages certainly was _an _antichrist, but how can someone like Nero or Stalin escape such a label?


----------



## KGP (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exactly. We can look at each view and see how it leads to error.
> 
> 1) Postmillennialism --> Social Gospel Liberalism
> 2) Amillennialism --> Liberal Allegorism; anti-semitism
> 3) Premillennialism --> Sum of all evils in human history



I picked up on this immediately. Just some feedback, your intent was obvious to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Failure to warn God's people of the identity of antichrist is willful ignorance. Also, to ascribe to the future and a future age that which nobody would ever see until the end of time defeats the purpose of the Revelation



Premillennialists fail to warn about the identity of Antichrist? Usually they are ridiculed for focusing on antichrist. Or maybe your real target is any eschatology that isn't historicist.

Per the second sentence, I might not be alive when Christ returns, so that part of Revelation must not be written for me.


----------



## B.L. (Apr 7, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> Presbyterians never "lost" covenant theology, at least not the strain that comes through old Princeton and the modern seminaries that retained that teaching. Indeed, the establishment of a Biblical Theology Chair at Princeton ~1898 did a great deal to increase the church's understanding on the topic and was at the root of the teaching of people like O Palmer Robertson and Greg Beale. If anything, the contours of covenant theology were clarified as the twentieth century progressed.



If I have the time I'll dig around to find the sources that informed the comment I made. I've heard it several times over that covenant theology needed to be rediscovered after falling on hard times.

As a matter of fact, J.V. Fesko's planned three-part series on covenant theology, the first of which was _The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption,_ was written with the express aim to "*retrieve and recover classic Reformed covenant theology for the church.*"

This tangent runs the risk of derailing the thread further, so if I find anything further on this I'll message you it if interested.

Cheers.


----------



## KGP (Apr 7, 2020)

Bottom line on eschatology - get your personal eschatology locked down. Become an EXPERT in your personal eschatology. Because your end is likely far more immanent than that of the church or this present age.

You will meet the resurrected Lord Jesus face to face, you will give an account of your life before him, your secrets will be made plainly manifest before the hosts of heaven. This will happen soon. SO: Repent. Confess sin and flee from it. Cut off the right hand, pluck out the eye, be zealous for good works, keep the Word of Christ and the gospel on your lips, and own him boldly before men while you may.

Then, maybe, you are ready to venture into deeper waters.

What point is having the right eschatology if you cannot adorn it with your life? Each person must answer whether there are more pressing matters at hand. Better to miss out on the finer details of eschatology in favor of a closer daily walk with Christ; I've seen enough people do it the other way and have been that person myself for a season.

CI Scofield has his name on thousands of bibles. But read about his life and you'll see a man who was not fit for church office. The same could be said for many other end times experts.

This reminder is not necessary for everyone I am sure, but it was one I needed at one time, and it might be for someone reading here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 7, 2020)

BLM said:


> If I have the time I'll dig around to find the sources that informed the comment I made. I've heard it several times over that covenant theology needed to be rediscovered after falling on hard times.
> 
> As a matter of fact, J.V. Fesko's planned three-part series on covenant theology, the first of which was _The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption,_ was written with the express aim to "*retrieve and recover classic Reformed covenant theology for the church.*"
> 
> ...


Dr. Fesko spent time in north Georgia where he would have had a number of PCUSA churches nearby that certainly abandoned covenant theology long ago. In Georgia you will also find older PCA churches that went to the new denomination to escape liberalism but were not moving _toward_ a distinctively reformed position. In such a setting, covenant theology would certainly need to be reintroduced. I grew up in Georgia where dispensationalism and Hal Lindsey premillennialism are practically in the air one breathes.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Citizen (Apr 7, 2020)

bookslover said:


> The thing about eschatology is this:
> 
> This fact should serve as a hint that we don't know as much about the subject as we like to think we do. So, whatever position you hold to, hold it sincerely, but hold it lightly, because we could _all_ be wrong.





KGP said:


> Bottom line on eschatology - get your personal eschatology locked down. Become an EXPERT in your personal eschatology. Because your end is likely far more immanent than that of the church or this present age.
> 
> You will meet the resurrected Lord Jesus face to face, you will give an account of your life before him, your secrets will be made plainly manifest before the hosts of heaven. This will happen soon. SO: Repent. Confess sin and flee from it. Cut off the right hand, pluck out the eye, be zealous for good works, keep the Word of Christ and the gospel on your lips, and own him boldly before men while you may.
> 
> ...



Amen, and amen. 

I think the more eminent "danger" in all this is a feeling of self-satisfaction, followed by a determination to justify and re-justify ones own conclusion while pointing out the faults in that of another. Consider the benefits that could be reaped in devoting that time, energy, and intellect to the present.

Am NOT suggest eschatology is unworthy of consideration, but not at the expense of so much else, for the reasons others have already stated. Obviously, scores of men more intelligent (than me anyway) have find plenty of ways to interpret the source material. The 10 Commandments or the Gospels on the other hand.....


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Premillennialists fail to warn about the identity of Antichrist? Usually they are ridiculed for focusing on antichrist. Or maybe your real target is any eschatology that isn't historicist.
> 
> Per the second sentence, I might not be alive when Christ returns, so that part of Revelation must not be written for me.



One might be putting himself out on a limb by dogmatically saying, "this particular person or thing is antichrist and I would bet my life on it", but I would challenge you to show me something or someone other than the line of men known as the papacy and a false religion such as the Roman Catholic Church that better fits the collective description of the antichrist in the Word of Truth. To my knowledge nothing else within the last 2 millennia comes even close. Paul said the man of sin comes from the apostasy. There was an apostasy from the true church that resulted in the Roman church and papal system. The Roman beast looked to have been slain, but it was resurrected in the form of papacy, which was more dangerous than imperial Rome, because for many long centuries, the papacy wielded both the spiritual and the carnal sword and literally made the known world to own him as their lord and master, as god on earth. For over a thousand years, many millions were slain for their testimony against antichrist, having sealed it with their own blood.

I shudder to think of E.C.T. and the evangelical pastors who joined in calling the Pope a brother in Christ and the Romish system truly Christian. What spiritual fornication!

Yes the prophecies of Christ's return are for you, because we are to live every day of our life in anticipation of His return, watchful and sober, for we know not what hour our Lord is coming!

The only thing I'm interested in is the truth. And the prophecies of scripture were given to us not to speculate about the future, but for all saints in all centuries to be able to see the accuracy of the word of God and strengthen their faith. "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." John 14:29


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

KGP said:


> Bottom line on eschatology - get your personal eschatology locked down. Become an EXPERT in your personal eschatology. Because your end is likely far more immanent than that of the church or this present age.
> 
> You will meet the resurrected Lord Jesus face to face, you will give an account of your life before him, your secrets will be made plainly manifest before the hosts of heaven. This will happen soon. SO: Repent. Confess sin and flee from it. Cut off the right hand, pluck out the eye, be zealous for good works, keep the Word of Christ and the gospel on your lips, and own him boldly before men while you may.
> 
> ...




Good admonition brother. But I began this thread not to pick on people's eschatology and to stick my chest out, but to provoke thought as to what many godly men consider to be a harmful doctrine taught in the church. One aspect of "godliness" that is often thrown out the window is to hold to good and sound doctrine. For a man can eschew evil all he wants in the grosser forms, such as idolatry, sexual immorality, drunkenness, etc. but once we have these things under our feet we need to pursue sound doctrine. Many speak today as though the truth cannot be known about the millennial question, or about many issues for that matter. One thing is for sure, from the writings of the apostles, there is no room for a carnal kingdom on earth of exactly 1000 years after Christ returns, at the end of which Satan leads a gigantic rebellion against the risen Christ, sitting on a literal throne over in Jerusalem. The word of God is plain and tells us that the Lord is coming to judge the world in righteousness and on that Day, there is no further opportunity for salvation, Jew or Gentile. We look for new heavens and a new earth, the home of righteousness.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Amillennialism --> Acceptance Christ is reigning and looking forward to immediate and eternal marriage with our Lord after death.
> 
> Premillennialism dangers: Undermining Christ's current reign (Matthew 28:18), confusion about going back to signs and shadows, failure to recognize the on-going warnings and signs prophesied, misplaced measures to overly protecting national Israel (*not antisemitism), and misleading Jews (and others) about their future and salvation.
> 
> *In my opinion, true antisemitism is deceiving a Jew by asserting that someday their nation will be restored to power and return to the Old Covenant practices.



You said it brother! If we truly love someone, we tell them the truth. We don't tell them unbiblical falsehoods.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Paul said the man of sin comes from the apostasy. There was an apostasy from the true church that resulted in the Roman church and papal system.



This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle premise. You have shown necessary conditions for the Antichrist (committed apostasy). You have confused that with sufficient conditions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Yes the prophecies of Christ's return are for you, because we are to live every day of our life in anticipation of His return, watchful and sober, for we know not what hour our Lord is coming!



Every premillennialist in the world admits that. I don't think you understood the reductio force of my statement.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle premise. You have shown necessary conditions for the Antichrist (committed apostasy). You have confused that with sufficient conditions.



So then what is your stab at who antichrist, was, is, or will be?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> So then what is your stab at who antichrist, was, is, or will be?



I try not to speculate when doing eschatology. I'm not soft on Rome. I've been debating Catholics for almost two decades.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't think you grasped my post. I wasn't saying that amillennialism is anti-semitic (though I do think many partial preterists are). I was simply noting that if we are critiquing a view based on how people down the road applied that view, then any charge is fair game.



You said we can look at each view and see how it leads to error. Then you said Amillennialism leads to anti-Semitism. I said this can only happen if the student of Amillennialism doesn't understand the view itself. I think you are the one not grasping what I say.

By the way, what is your millennial view? Do you care to share it brother? What is your timeline of events from the first coming of Christ to His second and then eternity? Do you believe in a 1000 year earthly reign of Christ over the Jews after He returns, before the eternal state begins?


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I try not to speculate when doing eschatology. I'm not soft on Rome. I've been debating Catholics for almost two decades.



So then I suppose the apostles were wasting their time telling the early Christians about these things since they cannot be known or understood. And it is of no spiritual value to be warned in our hearts as to the nature of antichrist and his false modes of worship.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> You said we can look at each view and see how it leads to error. Then you said Amillennialism leads to anti-Semitism. I said this can only happen if the student of Amillennialism doesn't understand the view itself. I think you are the one not grasping what I say.
> 
> By the way, what is your millennial view? Do you care to share it brother? What is your timeline of events from the first coming of Christ to His second and then eternity? Do you believe in a 1000 year earthly reign of Christ over the Jews after He returns, before the eternal state begins?


Brother, Christ's work did not begin with his first coming. His work is a continuum from the moment He promised to crush the head of the serpent through to Jesus' glorious return and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth. The history of redemption is at the heart of a Biblical view of history. Eschatology is not some far off future event. It is the reality that God has chosen a people for himself that He will deliver through the trials of a fallen world that despises Christ and his bride, the church.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

bookslover said:


> The thing about eschatology is this:
> 
> The church, over the last nearly 2,000 years, has teased out the three basic positions - premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism - _from the same biblical material.
> _
> This fact should serve as a hint that we don't know as much about the subject as we like to think we do. So, whatever position you hold to, hold it sincerely, but hold it lightly, because we could _all_ be wrong.



But doesn't the whole issue hinge on how we all read the Bible and what our hermeneutic is? Some hermeneutical approaches are unbiblical and so we can rule out the eschatological systems that stem from an unorthodox or a non-reformed hermeneutic.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> Brother, Christ's work did not begin with his first coming. His work is a continuum from the moment He promised to crush the head of the serpent through to Jesus' glorious return and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth. The history of redemption is at the heart of a Biblical view of history. Eschatology is not some far off future event. It is the reality that God has chosen a people for himself that He will deliver through the trials of a fallen world that despises Christ and his bride, the church.



Yes I understand this and accept it. I was merely referencing the period of time between Christ's first and second advent since this is the period of time under debate among Christians. In another post I mentioned how the whole of scripture is eschatological, which is what you are iterating here, and I would concur that this is at the heart of the matter. The fact that many want to reduce eschatology to a discussion of future events shows how the whole thing has been obscured by incorrect views, and that the main point is that God has chosen to save a people for Himself from the foundation of the world and the unfolding of this drama has been going on since the beginning. And that the consummation of the age is with the marriage of Christ to His bride the church. This is the end of all things and the intent of all history, that towards which history is directed by God. Amen brother I am in agreement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> So then I suppose the apostles were wasting their time telling the early Christians about these things since they cannot be known or understood. And it is of no spiritual value to be warned in our hearts as to the nature of antichrist and his false modes of worship.



Yes. That's exactly what I said. 

Being on guard against Antichrist is important. What you have loudly asserted but not demonstrated is that the nature of the papacy was already evident in Paul's time.

You are committing the same method you accuse premils of doing. It's having Paul say, "Be on guard against an institution that won't manifest itself as evil until 600 AD (or 900 AD, depending on when we date the fall of the church).


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> You said we can look at each view and see how it leads to error. Then you said Amillennialism leads to anti-Semitism. I said this can only happen if the student of Amillennialism doesn't understand the view itself. I think you are the one not grasping what I say.
> 
> By the way, what is your millennial view? Do you care to share it brother? What is your timeline of events from the first coming of Christ to His second and then eternity? Do you believe in a 1000 year earthly reign of Christ over the Jews after He returns, before the eternal state begins?



Yeah, you still haven't grasped the hypothetical nature of the reductio. Of course amil doesn't lead to anti-semitism. And even if it did, that wouldn't logically refute it. It was a hypothetical reductio.

I lean premil but I am not 100% committed on it.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yeah, you still haven't grasped the hypothetical nature of the reductio. Of course amil doesn't lead to anti-semitism. And even if it did, that wouldn't logically refute it. It was a hypothetical reductio.
> 
> I lean premil but I am not 100% committed on it.



Brother your IQ is very high and I can see that. I feel ashamed to even be debating this with you. I admit that I have been about doing things as i read posts scattered around this thread, kind of wondering what order they were written in. Haha

Forgive me if I missed the point of your post.


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 7, 2020)

Rescued said:


> One might be putting himself out on a limb by dogmatically saying, "this particular person or thing is antichrist and I would bet my life on it", but I would challenge you to show me something or someone other than the line of men known as the papacy and a false religion such as the Roman Catholic Church that better fits the collective description of the antichrist in the Word of Truth. To my knowledge nothing else within the last 2 millennia comes even close. Paul said the man of sin comes from the apostasy. There was an apostasy from the true church that resulted in the Roman church and papal system. The Roman beast looked to have been slain, but it was resurrected in the form of papacy, which was more dangerous than imperial Rome, because for many long centuries, the papacy wielded both the spiritual and the carnal sword and literally made the known world to own him as their lord and master, as god on earth. For over a thousand years, many millions were slain for their testimony against antichrist, having sealed it with their own blood.
> 
> I shudder to think of E.C.T. and the evangelical pastors who joined in calling the Pope a brother in Christ and the Romish system truly Christian. What spiritual fornication!
> 
> ...


I think we need to be careful about attempting to point out specific antichrists. As John noted in 1 John 2:18, "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now *many antichrists have come*. Therefore we know that it is the last hour."

A few verses later, "22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

There does appear (from what I can discern) to be a consummate false prophet at the very end of the age who aids the beast. This is often considered to be 'the antichrist', but there appear to be many (well before the Roman Catholic Church).


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes. That's exactly what I said.
> 
> Being on guard against Antichrist is important. What you have loudly asserted but not demonstrated is that the nature of the papacy was already evident in Paul's time.
> 
> You are committing the same method you accuse premils of doing. It's having Paul say, "Be on guard against an institution that won't manifest itself as evil until 600 AD (or 900 AD, depending on when we date the fall of the church).



If you look up Pilgrims Covenant Church in Wisconsin and listen to their pastor's 16 part series on the papal antichrist you might find it well answers these questions.

Paul gave a great description of the man of sin to the Thessalonians. And he spoke of why at that time, he was unable to be revealed, the "he" that prevented the antichrist from rising to power was at the time, imperial Rome or the emperor. When viewing 2000 year old prophecies we must look to history to see if they have been fulfilled in any way. The amil historicist sees prophecy as some having been already fulfilled, some being fulfilled and some to be fulfilled in the future. Christians can look back at history and see documentation of the fulfillment of prophecy and it strengthens our faith. The immediate context of Paul in this matter is similar to all the apostolic warnings to be ready for Christ's coming in the clouds for Judgment. Paul believed it could have been in his own lifetime and yet it wouldn't be until thousands of years later. Paul did not know the exact date of the fall of the Roman empire, but he warned about what would arise from its ashes, a beast more deadly than all others before it. Deadly to the souls of men.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 7, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> ildren, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now *many antichrists have come*. Therefore we know that it is the last hour."
> 
> A few verses later, "22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."



I don't think that the antichrist will be either the papacy as an institution or any specific pope in particular. Nor do I think it will be the Roman Catholic Church per se.

From what little we're told in Scripture, it seems that the antichrist (and his system) will be something much more fierce and devastatingly destructive than any pope has been or could be, and some sort of evil much bigger than the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 7, 2020)

bookslover said:


> I don't think that the antichrist will be either the papacy as an institution or any specific pope in particular. Nor do I think it will be the Roman Catholic Church per se.
> 
> From what little we're told in Scripture, it seems that the antichrist (and his system) will be something much more fierce and devastatingly destructive than any pope has been or could be, and some sort of evil much bigger than the Roman Catholic Church.



Not so at all. The papacy has a documented history of hundreds and hundreds of dark, long years of murder and persecution of the saints. You're burying the obvious and trying to make the scriptures say more than they really do. Even if it says he makes all that dwell on the earth to worship him, it does not have to refer to every man, woman boy and girl including the Native Americans who lived on North America. In John's time the world was the known world. Anyway, no the antichrist is an office, like the president is an office. It is the head of the anti church. The scriptures did not warn of an atheistic, secular ruler, but that antichrist would be a Christian apostate, exalting himself above all that is called God. He seeks to oppose Christ by saying he is for Christ, and by supplanting his office.

So futurists can talk about microchips in the forehead and a rebuilt Jewish temple all they want. I will gladly stick with the interpretations of the historic Protestants, the Waldensies, Hugenots and other faithful Christians martyred and persecuted by the beast. The history and fulfillment of it are evident. But perhaps there lies ahead of us one final rising of this papal beast in our modern age where he will once again wield both the spiritual and carnal sword, and then we will see who among us is faithful to the Lamb and not in secret alliegance to the false church.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 8, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I think we need to be careful about attempting to point out specific antichrists. As John noted in 1 John 2:18, "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now *many antichrists have come*. Therefore we know that it is the last hour."
> 
> A few verses later, "22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."
> 
> There does appear (from what I can discern) to be a consummate false prophet at the very end of the age who aids the beast. This is often considered to be 'the antichrist', but there appear to be many (well before the Roman Catholic Church).



John said, "they went out from us..." I John 2:19 and that there were many in his day who went out from the church, drawing disciples after themselves, openly denying that Jesus was the Christ. Paul also said that shortly after his departure, grievous wolves would come in among them. But these false teachers were mere dwarves compared to the giant who would stand up among them centuries later. The Antichrist couldn't fully rise to power until the fall of the civil Roman empire. In I Thessalonians 2 Paul speaks of this, that the the man of sin had to be revealed, who opposes God and exalts himself above God. But he says something was then holding this wicked spirit back from fully manifesting himself...he is reticent to say what and who it is, lest his letter fall into the hands of the authorities, and the church undergo even further persecution. Because he says, "ye know WHAT withholdeth..." so he reminds them of how he told them in person back in verse 5 and that they knew at that time what was holding back the rise of Antichrist, the Roman empire. Then in verse 7 he states this mystery of iniquity was already at work, but now Paul speaks of a HE who will not allow the rise of THE Antichrist at that time, that is, Caesar himself. Because Antichrist would sit on a throne of spiritual and civil power at the same time and this would be impossible with Caesar in power. So "he who now letteth, will let until he be taken out of the way." Paul could not openly speak of the removal of the Emperor from his throne without unnecessarily putting the church at greater risk.

So the Roman beast then centuries later is slain and the Roman empire falls. Now rises THE Antichrist from the grave and ascends out of the bottomless pit. He comes from within the visible church, the temple of God, and exalts himself to be the holy Father, the vicar of Christ, and that his decrees supercede and cancel the inspired scriptures. He claims to be the Lord God on earth (check official Catholic doctrine). Because Satan found that his most effective strategy against Christ and His true church, was to provide a counterfeit Christ and church. And so the Pope would claim to be in Christ's place, posing as a friend of God and yet denying him. The very nature of what the Pope has done to oppose Christ, by counterfeiting him, acting in place of Him, is the true fulfillment of denying that Jesus is the Christ. The Pope doesn't openly deny Christ or God, he has found that the most subtle and effective of all methods is to deny Him by supplanting Him. So he is called the son of perdition in I Thessalonians 2:4 which was the name given to Judas, the betrayer of Christ. Antichrist is no mere civil ruler way off in the future, he is a betrayer of Jesus Christ. This is the ultimate betrayal.

And so the whole world wonders after the beast and worships him. And the kings of the earth give their power to him and subject themselves to him. And so he sends out his armies and priests to conquer and to kill whoever will not bow to him and take his brand on their foreheads. True Christians are burned alive, tortured, mutilated...men, women and children. The Waldensies were burned alive in a cave, choked to death by the smoke, men and women were filled with gun powder and blown up. Millions of God's elect all over the earth, over many long, dark, bloody centuries were slain by the beast, for not taking the mark of the papal beast and bowing to his image, and for standing for the truth.

But this woman, drunken with the blood of the saints has her end, and strong is the Lord God who judges her. Her sins have reached up to heaven and she shall receive double at the Lord's hand. At the brightness of His coming shall this Wicked be destroyed.

It's all documented, written down and signed with the blood of our brethren who now reign with Christ in heaven. They loved not their lives unto death. And we would do well to recognize all these things. To sit here in our modern age, and say that these these things have only a future fulfillment in something that will be really bad is laughable. But I think it possible though that at the end of the day, the Antichrist over there on the 7 hills in Rome may indeed rise up one more time in his full strength and lead one more full attack on God's people, and that in the midst of that, Christ will come. See Rev. 20:8-9


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Paul also said that shortly after his departure, grievous wolves would come in among them. But these false teachers were mere dwarves compared to the giant who would stand up among them centuries later. The Antichrist couldn't fully rise to power until the fall of the civil Roman empire. In I Thessalonians 2 Paul speaks of this, that the the man of sin had to be revealed, who opposes God and exalts himself above God.



This is what I meant about an undistributed middle premise. You are offering us a string of assertions.

Your argument looks like this:

P --> Q
Therefore, Q

You haven't given us any exegetical connection showing us that the essence of the medieval/Tridentine papacy was embedded in the Thessalonians' understanding. You just assert that.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Not so at all. The papacy has a documented history of hundreds and hundreds of dark, long years of murder and persecution of the saints. You're burying the obvious and trying to make the scriptures say more than they really do. E



No, he isn't. No one here denies the Papacy's evil actions. One can say that the Papacy is evil, yet dispute your non-exegetical claims.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 8, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is what I meant about an undistributed middle premise. You are offering us a string of assertions.
> 
> Your argument looks like this:
> 
> ...





BayouHuguenot said:


> No, he isn't. No one here denies the Papacy's evil actions. One can say that the Papacy is evil, yet dispute your





BayouHuguenot said:


> No, he isn't. No one here denies the Papacy's evil actions. One can say that the Papacy is evil, yet dispute your non-exegetical claims.



This is too funny to say these are my claims. You seem to ignore the fact that I have taken the historic Protestant position on this, and whether or not I'm exegeting passages well enough for you is besides the point. The problem is your ears are shut, and you're arguing with men like John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, John Calvin, John Bunyan and the list goes on and on and on. So go ahead and sit there and debate, debate debate and refuse to listen to the truth. That's your problem, not mine. Take care.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2020)

Rescued said:


> not I'm exegeting passages well enough for you is besides the point. The problem is your ears are shut, and you're arguing with men like John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, John Calvin, John Bunyan and the list goes on and on and on. So go ahead and sit there and debate, debate debate and refuse to listen to the truth. That's your problem, not mine. Take care.



Exegesis. Sola Scriptura. Yes, and the end of the day it is exegesis that matters.


----------



## Rescued (Apr 8, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exegesis. Sola Scriptura. Yes, and the end of the day it is exegesis
> 
> So don't





BayouHuguenot said:


> Exegesis. Sola Scriptura. Yes, and the end of the day it is exegesis that matters.



Yep and the Reformers quite well exegeted this. Please go read them.


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 8, 2020)

Rescued said:


> John said, "they went out from us..." I John 2:19 and that there were many in his day who went out from the church, drawing disciples after themselves, openly denying that Jesus was the Christ. Paul also said that shortly after his departure, grievous wolves would come in among them. But these false teachers were mere dwarves compared to the giant who would stand up among them centuries later. The Antichrist couldn't fully rise to power until the fall of the civil Roman empire. In I Thessalonians 2 Paul speaks of this, that the the man of sin had to be revealed, who opposes God and exalts himself above God. But he says something was then holding this wicked spirit back from fully manifesting himself...he is reticent to say what and who it is, lest his letter fall into the hands of the authorities, and the church undergo even further persecution. Because he says, "ye know WHAT withholdeth..." so he reminds them of how he told them in person back in verse 5 and that they knew at that time what was holding back the rise of Antichrist, the Roman empire. Then in verse 7 he states this mystery of iniquity was already at work, but now Paul speaks of a HE who will not allow the rise of THE Antichrist at that time, that is, Caesar himself. Because Antichrist would sit on a throne of spiritual and civil power at the same time and this would be impossible with Caesar in power. So "he who now letteth, will let until he be taken out of the way." Paul could not openly speak of the removal of the Emperor from his throne without unnecessarily putting the church at greater risk.
> 
> So the Roman beast then centuries later is slain and the Roman empire falls. Now rises THE Antichrist from the grave and ascends out of the bottomless pit. He comes from within the visible church, the temple of God, and exalts himself to be the holy Father, the vicar of Christ, and that his decrees supercede and cancel the inspired scriptures. He claims to be the Lord God on earth (check official Catholic doctrine). Because Satan found that his most effective strategy against Christ and His true church, was to provide a counterfeit Christ and church. And so the Pope would claim to be in Christ's place, posing as a friend of God and yet denying him. The very nature of what the Pope has done to oppose Christ, by counterfeiting him, acting in place of Him, is the true fulfillment of denying that Jesus is the Christ. The Pope doesn't openly deny Christ or God, he has found that the most subtle and effective of all methods is to deny Him by supplanting Him. So he is called the son of perdition in I Thessalonians 2:4 which was the name given to Judas, the betrayer of Christ. Antichrist is no mere civil ruler way off in the future, he is a betrayer of Jesus Christ. This is the ultimate betrayal.
> 
> ...


You need to be careful with honing in on the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not ruling out the possibility Satan may manifest himself through the Pope in end times, but the Catholic church, much like most institutions, is losing influence over a new generation of cyber oriented, self-independent people who desire autonomy. I could just as easily see the likes of a Barack Obama, Oprah, Matt Damon, Bill Gates, or Prince Harry/Meghan - who "everyone loves" and can be trusted to compromise - being thrust into power and ushering in the Day of the Lord.

Consider Daniel 11:21, "In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. *He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries*." This was at least partially fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes, but I suspect will be ultimately fulfilled in the false prophet.

I mentioned this earlier, but as an Amillennialist, I view much of the book of Revelation and latter days prophesies throughout the Bible in a cyclical manner. When John wrote the book of Revelation (likely in early 70's or possibly 60's AD), I imagine much of his audience had Nero in mind for the antichrist. And I think he did partially fulfill this. But there would be many antichrists to emerge throughout the church age (i.e. "millennium").

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2020)

Rescued said:


> Yep and the Reformers quite well exegeted this. Please go read them.



I have and I have interacted with their exegesis here. This isn't my first rodeo.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2020)

Rescued said:


> The problem is your ears are shut,.....So go ahead and sit there and debate, debate debate and refuse to listen to the truth. That's your problem, not mine.



I simply asked logical questions and pointed out weaknesses in your argument, and this is how you respond?


----------



## BRK (Apr 8, 2020)

For those who understand the historic premillennial position well, what is the Scriptural purpose behind the earthly millennial reign of Christ? While I no longer hold dispensational views, the premillennial position makes sense within that system because it accounts for the earthly, national promises to Israel that the dispensationalist believes have yet to be fulfilled. However, under covenant theology the eschatological framework of the premillennial view is difficult for me to reconcile because it seems as if the prophetic projection of Scripture is not ultimately pointing toward earthly, national fulfillment but toward Christ and his Kingdom.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2020)

BRK said:


> For those who understand the historic premillennial position well, what is the Scriptural purpose behind the earthly millennial reign of Christ? While I no longer hold dispensational views, the premillennial position makes sense within that system because it accounts for the earthly, national promises to Israel that the dispensationalist believes have yet to be fulfilled. However, under covenant theology the eschatological framework of the premillennial view is difficult for me to reconcile because it seems as if the prophetic projection of Scripture is not ultimately pointing toward earthly, national fulfillment but toward Christ and his Kingdom.



That's the same criticism Dispensationalists make of historic premil.


----------



## BRK (Apr 8, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the same criticism Dispensationalists make of historic premil.



Jacob, I fear I may not understand what you mean here. Admittedly my view of premillennialism is filtered through my dispensational roots and I may be conflating dispensational and historic premillennial perspectives in some ways. Forgive me if I have mistakenly misrepresented the views!

The purpose of my question was to understand where the dispensational and historical positions diverge regarding the millennial reign. I think I understand the dispensational side to be looking forward to the fulfillment of ethnic, national promises to Israel. Of the historic side, I am not so certain what the understanding of the millennial reign is.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2020)

BRK said:


> Jacob, I fear I may not understand what you mean here. Admittedly my view of premillennialism is filtered through my dispensational roots and I may be conflating dispensational and historic premillennial perspectives in some ways. Forgive me if I have mistakenly misrepresented the views!
> 
> The purpose of my question was to understand where the dispensational and historical positions diverge regarding the millennial reign. I think I understand the dispensational side to be looking forward to the fulfillment of ethnic, national promises to Israel. Of the historic side, I am not so certain what the understanding of the millennial reign is.



The dispensationalists posits the millennial reign because that's how God will fulfill his land promises.

Fulfilling the land promises really isn't a big deal for a historic premil, so they don't have as specific a reason for needing a millennium.


----------

