# Question on Historic (post-trib) Premillennialism



## Jimmy the Greek

If Historic Premills see no time delay between the rapture and the parousia, how do unbelievers get into their Millennium?


----------



## Leslie

It would be helpful if you explained what you mean by the historic premil position. It would help us, who are not theologically up to snuff, follow the thread and learn something.


----------



## DMcFadden

Historic premils argue that believers rise to meet the Lord in the air and return to the planet to rule with him. The term used for meet the Lord in the air is the one used in Acts for the delegation going out to meet the Apostle Paul and accompany him back to Rome.

The question I have has to do with the mixing of resurrected bodies and natural bodies during the literal millennium envisioned by historic premils. Am I to believe that I will be living in my resurrection body next door to a person who still gets married, drives to work, procreates, raises his family, gets colds, takes vacations to Yosemite, contracts cancer, and dies? Wow! Do I get to know a man, his son, grandson, great grandson, great great grandson, etc. over the course of 1,000 years?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

1. It seems obvious from Scripture that at the parousia Jesus will judge the quick and the dead. At that time unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction, 2 Thess. 1:8-10.
2. Both historic and dispensational premills see the millennium populated to some extent with unregenerate natural people, who participate in the final rebellion at the end of the 1000 years.
3. The dispensationalist explains the natural people in the millennium as the offspring of those who were saved in the 7 years between the rapture and the parousia.
4. But the historic premill has no such luxury in his explanation since the rapture and parousia are concurrent. Thus my question. How do unregenerate natural people get into the historic premills millennium.
5. This is aside from the troubling thought that Dennis raised: of co-existence of glorified saints and unregenerate in the millennium. Not to mention the fact that all premills see evil and death continuing after the second coming.


----------



## DMcFadden

Jim, I missed the point of your OP. My understanding (from several decades as an historic premil before coming to my senses) is that Jesus comes back to earth to set up his kingdom and the judgment occurs at the end of the millennium. Therefore, you have the mixture you describe. Dispensationalists not only multiply the "comings" of Jesus, they also do the same with the final judgment. Don't ask me to rationalize the "rough edges." It does not make any sense to me.


----------



## RamistThomist

DMcFadden said:


> Historic premils argue that believers rise to meet the Lord in the air and return to the planet to rule with him. The term used for meet the Lord in the air is the one used in Acts for the delegation going out to meet the Apostle Paul and accompany him back to Rome.



Yes. This is becoming a quite established position in NT scholarship even among those not connected with historic premils (e.g., Wright, GB Caird, others)



> The question I have has to do with the mixing of resurrected bodies and natural bodies during the literal millennium envisioned by historic premils. Am I to believe that I will be living in my resurrection body next door to a person who still gets married, drives to work, procreates, raises his family, gets colds, takes vacations to Yosemite, contracts cancer, and dies?



Yes, but Isaiah 65 hints at longetivity which will probably have some effect on human sickness.



> Wow! Do I get to know a man, his son, grandson, great grandson, great great grandson, etc. over the course of 1,000 years?



Why not? We have to make a distinction between what we find humanly incredible and what is actually logically impossible. Plantinga's Possible Worlds Semantics is helpful at this point.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jimmy the Greek said:


> 2. Both historic and dispensational premills see the millennium populated to some extent with unregenerate natural people, who participate in the final rebellion at the end of the 1000 years.
> 3. The dispensationalist explains the natural people in the millennium as the offspring of those who were saved in the 7 years between the rapture and the parousia.
> 4. But the historic premill has no such luxury in his explanation since the rapture and parousia are concurrent. Thus my question. How do unregenerate natural people get into the historic premills millennium.



Jesus returns, sets up his kingdom, believers are transformed. Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King, but we have no reason on the premil scheme on why they must be born against or immediately go to hades.



> 5. This is aside from the troubling thought that Dennis raised: of co-existence of glorified saints and unregenerate in the millennium. Not to mention the fact that all premills see evil and death continuing after the second coming.



You say "troubling" I say there in the text. There is a difference between what we consider "normal" and what is in fact logically possible.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

ReformedReidian said:


> Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King



Maybe this could be differently phrased. I say this because unbelievers are a rebellion against King Jesus. That is what unbelief toward God is: rebellion against God.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dennis: “Historic premils argue that believers rise to meet the Lord in the air and return to the planet to rule with him”

Jacob: “Yes. This is becoming a quite established position in NT scholarship even among those not connected with historic premils (e.g., Wright, GB Caird, others)”.​ 
Jacob, actually Caird, in his _The Revelation of Saint John_, along with almost all other contemporary amils, have believers’ bodies rise to meet the Lord in the air (those still living when He returns will rise body and soul) and transformed into resurrection bodies; in Rev 19:14 Caird has those overcoming saints return with Him as He destroys assembled unregenerate humankind, including the beast and false prophet (19:20) who have declared war on Him—on His body, the church—referring to “all men, both free and bond, both small and great” (19:18). Again it is stated, after the casting of beast and false prophet alive into the lake of fire (19:20), “And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh” (19:21).

Thus is seen, a) “GB Caird, [and] others” (I don’t know Wright’s view) do not have believers return with Christ to rule on the earth at that point, but to accompany Him as He wars in the great battle called Armageddon. After this is the final judgment at the great white throne as seen in Rev 20:11 ff. I gather that after this is the marriage supper of the Lamb and the placing the saints on New Earth as the commencement of our eternal honeymoon with our Husband Lord.

And, b) there is no one left after Armageddon, for the unregenerate have been slain—all of them. And then raised, with all other inhabitants of Hell, to stand before the Judge. There are no survivors of the parousia to people the earth, which earth will be burned up and made new as the Creator-Redeemer prepares the new dwelling place of His beloved.

________

Jim: “the troubling thought. . . of [the] co-existence of glorified saints and unregenerate in the millennium.”

Jacob: “You say ‘troubling’ I say there in the text”​ 
Jacob, what text? Will you try to explicate Isaiah 65:17 ff. to that effect? Where the LORD is speaking of the eternal state Isaiah is seeking to depict in language and imagery of his time? The LORD prefaces that section with,
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create​ 
__________


Leslie, here’s a brief view of Historic Premil by Dean Davis, author of the excellent Amil work, _The High King of Heaven_ (he had earlier given me permission to post two brief sections from his book that deal with Historic Premillennialism). Two acronyms he uses are NCH = New Covenant Hermeneutic, and OTKP = Old Testament Kingdom Prophecy. The first section is:
____

*
1. Historic Premillennialism *





This view is called _premillennial_ because it teaches that Christ will come again _before_ a thousand year reign upon the earth. It is called _historic_ because, according to some, it was the dominant view of the early Church, and also because, in various forms, it has appeared throughout much of Church History. 

There are two kinds of Historic Premillennialism (HP). The first may be called New Covenant (or Christian) Historic Premillennialism (NCHP). Its chief characteristic is that it places the Church at the center of the millennial scenario. Here, OTKP is fulfilled under the New Covenant, whether in the Era of Proclamation, the Millennium, or the World to Come. Accordingly, NCHP does not anticipate the exaltation of ethnic Israel in the Millennium, or a return to OT ordinances such as Temple worship, animal sacrifices, and Jewish Feasts. Rather, the Millennium is that stage in Salvation History where Christ’s Kingship is publically vindicated and celebrated in a renewed (but not yet perfected) world, and where His faithful New Covenant people are rewarded by sharing in His earthly reign. 

All of the ante-Nicene premillennarians were of this persuasion. They include Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Montanists, and Lactantius. After Augustine, NCHP was eclipsed for over a thousand years by amillennialism. However, in the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] and 18[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries a number of Protestant thinkers embraced it once again. They include Johann Alsted, Cotton Mather, Philipp Spener, Joseph Bengel, John Gill, Joseph Mede, and Charles Wesley. In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, many premillennarians began to experiment with a more literal interpretation of OTKP, and therefore showed a lively interest in God’s plans for ethnic Israel. In time this trend led to the triumph of Dispensational Premillennialism, with its unprecedented focus upon Israel’s millennial glory. However, since the mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century a large number of evangelicals, following the lead of theologian George Ladd, have rejected Dispensationalism and returned once again to the classic NCHP. Prominent among them are Clarence Bass, Jim Hamilton, Carl Henry, Robert Mounce, Grant Osborne, J. Barton Payne, and John Piper. Arguably, this is now the majority position of American theologians. If, then, it is essential conformity to Ante-Nicene premillennialism that makes one a “true” historic premillennarian, these men are the rightful heirs to that mantle. 

There is, however, a second form of HP. Again, it arose primarily in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, when many evangelicals, adopting a more literal interpretation of OTKP, began to assert that God will fulfill certain OT promises by restoring and exalting ethnic Israel, both prior to and during the Millennium. Their company is impressive. It includes David Baron, Andrew and Horatio Bonar, Franz Delitzsche, Frederick Godet, Robert M’ Cheyne, George Peters, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Tregelles, and Nathaniel West. Because of its interest in the future of ethnic Israel, we may call this view Old Covenant (or Jewish) Historic Premillennialism (OCHP). 

While there are significant differences among them, most Old Covenant premillennarians would endorse the following sketch of Salvation History. In OT times God promised, prefigured, and prepared for an eschatological Kingdom that would appear in three stages: The Church Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Millennium, and the World to Come. The mission of the Church will advance in history infallibly, though with great difficulty. Towards the end of the age, the world will plunge into deep spiritual darkness, thereby triggering the rise of the Antichrist, a brief season severe persecution, and the apostasy of many professing believers. Then Christ will come again. When He does (or shortly before it), the great mass of Jews will be converted. Acting in judgment, Christ will destroy the Antichrist and his followers, and then confine Satan to the abyss. Acting in redemption, He will resurrect the saints of all time (or the martyrs alone), glorify living believers, partially lift the curse from the earth, and welcome believing Jews and the spared children of unbelievers into the Millennium. Now begins the theocratic stage of the Kingdom, when God’s eschatological David reigns over Israel and the nations. His kingship emanates from earthly Jerusalem, where (according to some) a glorious new Temple is situated, commemorative animal sacrifices are offered, and the ancient Mosaic feasts are observed. Though it is indeed a season of universal peace, the Millennium ends, mysteriously enough, with war: Released from the abyss, Satan uses his deceptive powers to incite a global rebellion against Christ and the saints. However, God immediately steps in so that fire falls from heaven, the rebels are consumed, and Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire. This brings on the (final) Consummation, wherein God raises the wicked dead (and, according to some, the millennial saints), judges the world in righteousness, destroys the present cosmos with fire, and creates new heavens and a new earth. Thus begins the third stage of the Kingdom, in which Jew and Gentile dwell together with God forever as a single glorified Church in the World to Come. 

Shorn of its emphasis on ethnic Israel and the (partial) restoration of Mosaic ordinances, this is how NCHP views Salvation History as well.

Observe from our time-line that by opting for a future Millennium both forms of HP require _two_ each of the great eschatological events, whether last battles, comings of Christ, resurrections, judgments, or cosmic transformations. In the pages ahead we will inquire as to whether the NT actually confirms this complex version of the Consummation, and, indeed, the entire HP scenario. 

[end first section]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

And here is section two of Dean Davis' remarks on Historic Premil, also from his High King of Heaven:

_______

Appendix 1

*A CRITIQUE OF HISTORIC PREMILLENNIALISM*

THIS IS THE first of four appendices in which I offer brief critiques of the main eschatological options before evangelical Christians. My purpose here is not to repeat the arguments and evidences discussed in the body of this book. Rather, I simply want to model what I regard as the most fruitful method for examining different eschatological perspectives, whether old or new. 

This method, which reflects the underlying issues of the GETD, involves asking four questions of each eschatological option. They are:

1) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Kingdom of God?

2) What is its view of the nature and structure of the Consummation? 

3) How does it interpret OTKP: basically literally, in terms of ethnic Israel and a future Mosaic theocracy; or basically spiritually, in terms of the Church and the spiritual reign of God introduced by the New Covenant? 

4) What is its view of the Revelation in general, and of Revelation 20 in particular?

With the help of the time-line shown below, let us use these helpful questions to critique Historic Premillennialism. You may wish to review the material on HP in chapter 3, where I distinguish between New Covenant and Old Covenant HP. 

*View of the Kingdom *

From our time-line we learn that HP envisions the Kingdom as entering history in three stages: the Church Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Millennium, and the World to Come. However, in our journey we found that the NT demurs. Apart from the much-disputed Revelation 20, it says nothing whatsoever about a future millennial stage of the Kingdom. Also, its didactic eschatology completely rules out premillennialism, since it has the Kingdom entering history not in three stages, but two: the Era of Proclamation and the World to Come.

Additionally, NT teaching about the _nature_ of the Kingdom shows that OCHP cannot possibly be true. This is because the two-staged reign of God is a creation of the New Covenant, with the result that the citizens of the Kingdom worship, not in this or that earthly mountain, but in spirit and (New Covenant) truth. There will be no return to the temporary and typological institutions of the ancient Mosaic theocracy. 

*View of the Consummation *

Historic premillennarians look for two distinct Comings of Christ—one at the end of the present evil age, and the other at the end of the Millennium. This complex scenario raises thorny questions. At the first Parousia, who will be judged and who will be allowed to enter the Millennium? How realistic—or biblical—is it to assert that the children of unbelievers will become the nations over which Christ rules? What happens to the millennial saints when they die? Will they immediately receive their resurrection bodies, or will they wait in heaven as disembodied spirits until the second resurrection at the end of the Millennium? How is it that Christ’s glorious millennial reign ends in near universal rebellion against him and his people? And finally, does Scripture really permit us to look for what HP requires: two resurrections, two judgments, and two cosmic transformations, all separated by a thousand years?

Such questions tell us that something is fundamentally wrong with HP. In the course of our study, we learned what it is: The NT consistently looks for a _single _consummation centered on a _single _parousia, resurrection, judgment, and cosmic transformation. Therefore, it is the doctrine of a future Millennium that shatters the simplicity of the biblical picture, and opens the door to confusion. Perhaps, then, premillennarians would be wise to re-visit their interpretation of Revelation 20, for by moving it into the present, as amillennialism does, all confusion disappears! 

*View of OTKP*

I rejoice that advocates of NCHP are inclined to interpret OTKP much as amillennarians do: as _veiled_ revelations in which God used OT language and imagery to speak “mysteriously” about spiritual and physical blessings _unveiled_ by Christ and the New Covenant. To paraphrase their Master, they are not far from the truth of the Kingdom!

I wonder, however, how they can preach and teach from OTKP. In particular, how can they discern which predictions are actually fulfilled in the Millennium? Is Isaiah 11:6-9 fulfilled in the Millennium? Since it says nothing of a thousand years, how can they be sure it does not speak “mysteriously” of the World to Come? And what of these premillennial favorites: Isaiah 65:17-25 and 66:22-24? Here the situation is even worse, since the prophet positively affirms that latter-day “Jerusalem”, and the world it will inhabit, will endure forever (65:18, 66:22)! 

It appears, then, that NCHP is shut up to Revelation 20 alone for its knowledge of the Millennium. This should make its proponents very uneasy. Do they really want to hang so great an eschatological bundle on so tiny a peg? Again, doesn’t this kind of problem invite a thorough re-examination of the meaning of Revelation 20 beneath the light of NT eschatology? 

As for the followers of OCHP, we remember that they interpret OTKP basically literally; that they view these prophecies as photographs of the future of ethnic Israel and the nations living together in the Millennium.

We have seen, however, that this approach plunges the biblical interpreter into a great thicket of difficulties: apparent contradictions, historical anachronisms, a future return to the Mosaic Law, and a losing battle with the NT doctrine of the Kingdom. Happily, we also saw that the apostles do _not _interpret OTKP in this manner. Yes, they understood that God meant “simple” Messianic prophe*cies—prophecies fulfilled _prior _to Pentecost—to be interpreted basically literally, and then to be used in the global proclamation of the Gospel. But they also understood that true OTKP’s—prophecies fulfilled _after _Pentecost—must be interpreted by a skillful use of the NCH, and therefore as being fulfilled in Christ, under the New Covenant, and among the New Covenant people of God: the Church of all times, comprised of Jew and Gentile. Let us be glad of it, for here alone do we find the way of escape from the maddening historical and theological contradictions into which OCHP would plunge us all. 

*View of the Revelation *

Whatever their approach to the Revelation as a whole, all historic premillennarians agree that chapter 20 speaks of events that occur _after _the Parousia. We have seen, however, that this futuristic reading of Revelation 20 immediately brings them into conflict with the rest of the NT, which pervasively sees the Kingdom as coming in two simple stages, separated by a single Consummation at the return of Christ. 

There is, however, a way of escape. We came upon it in Part 4 of our study, where we learned that Revelation 20 is actually one of six visionary cycles, _all of which _describe the period of time between Christ’s first and second advents. This was particularly evident from the striking similarities between chapters 12 and 20. Moreover, once we recognize that “the first resurrection” of 20:4-6 is spiritual rather than physical, it is easy to see how Revelation 20 symbolizes the course of the Era of Proclamation, and how the whole book now harmonizes perfectly with the rest of the NT. 

Summing up, we find that HP entangles the biblical interpreter in inescapable conflict and confusion. When, however, we receive from Christ the Master Keys to the GETD, all difficulties are resolved, and the one true eschatology of Scripture rises like the sun in its strength. I pray my premillennial brethren will receive those keys, and so enter into the joy of the amillennial dawn.

[end of section 2]

____________


The beauty of Dean's book is that it's main focus is the New Testament's (i.e., Christ's and His apostles') hermeneutic method of interpreting prophecy. Little wonder Sam Storms said of it, "the most sweeping and comprehensive book on eschatology that I’ve ever encountered. The scope of this book is simply breathtaking." This is the only book I know almost exclusively focused on the simplicity and beauty of eschatology rightly understood.


----------



## Sovereign Grace

I am staunchly amill in my eschatology, but I see the historic premill view in a much better light than the dispensational view, especially those who believe the church(which Christ hung, bled, and died for) to be a parantheses, an intercalation in God's plan for Israel. Yuck!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

ReformedReidian said:


> Jesus returns, sets up his kingdom, believers are transformed. Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King, but we have no reason on the premil scheme on why they must be born against or immediately go to hades.



But my point is that there is every reason that unbelievers "immediately go to hades" at the return of Christ. For which see Matt. 13:41-42, 24:39, and Paul in 2 Thess 1:8-10:
" ... Those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ... will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power *on the day he comes to be* ... marveled at among all those who have believed"


----------



## RamistThomist

Jimmy the Greek said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus returns, sets up his kingdom, believers are transformed. Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King, but we have no reason on the premil scheme on why they must be born against or immediately go to hades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But my point is that there is every reason that unbelievers "immediately go to hades" at the return of Christ. For which see Matt. 13:41-42, 24:39, and Paul in 2 Thess 1:8-10:
> " ... Those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ... will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power *on the day he comes to be* ... marveled at among all those who have believed"
Click to expand...


Sure. I understand that. The premillennial is just giving due weight to Isaiah 24-27 and Revelation 20 (and possible 1 Cor. 15:20-28).


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

ReformedReidian said:


> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus returns, sets up his kingdom, believers are transformed. Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King, but we have no reason on the premil scheme on why they must be born against or immediately go to hades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But my point is that there is every reason that unbelievers "immediately go to hades" at the return of Christ. For which see Matt. 13:41-42, 24:39, and Paul in 2 Thess 1:8-10:
> " ... Those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ... will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power *on the day he comes to be* ... marveled at among all those who have believed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. I understand that. The premillennial is just giving due weight to Isaiah 24-27 and Revelation 20 (and possible 1 Cor. 15:20-28).
Click to expand...


Thank you, Jacob. I will look into the Isaiah passages.


----------



## RamistThomist

And to be clear, I am not arguing for the truth of premillennialism exegetically. I am merely trying to show logical coherence.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, with respect to your saying, “And to be clear, I am not arguing for the truth of premillennialism exegetically. I am merely trying to show logical coherence”: Apart from sound exegesis there can be no “logical coherence” in the discerning of Scripture. And Scripture is truth (John 17:17).

What weight does Isaiah 24-27 have in support of the premil view?


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, with respect to your saying, “And to be clear, I am not arguing for the truth of premillennialism exegetically. I am merely trying to show logical coherence”: Apart from sound exegesis there can be no “logical coherence” in the discerning of Scripture. And Scripture is truth (John 17:17).
> 
> What weight does Isaiah 24-27 have in support of the premil view?



Logical coherence simply means that my propositions do not internally contradict one another within my system. The original objection was not whether premil's exegesis was correct, but how can they affirm (a) in light of (b). I suggested that there was no contradiction between (a) and (b).

Isaiah's Small Apocalypse is simply another place where premillennialists go for their views. Contra to what people think, Revelation 20 is not the only place. (Ladd was very, very wrong in saying that).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Can you show _where_ in Isaiah 24-27 you would go to support your views?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Can you show _where_ in Isaiah 24-27 you would go to support your views?



Isaiah 24:21ff

On that day the Lord will punish
the host of heaven, in heaven,
and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
22 They will be gathered together
as prisoners in a pit;
they will be shut up in a prison,
 and after many days they will be punished.

If the final punishment of the unregenerate happens simultaneously with other events, then it's hard to explain "the many days."


----------



## RamistThomist

Jimmy the Greek said:


> From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.



My suspicion is that Ladd didn't really care. While he became the representative of Historic Premil, most premils thought he was just another amillennialist (and most of his exegesis tends to go that route).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for your responses, Jacob, you really do put heart and effort into it! Though the passage in Isaiah 24:21-23 is a very wobbly peg to hang the premil schema on!

E.J. Young wisely says, “It is well to ask when the ‘many days’ [of Isa 24:22] begin, for the proper answer to this question will enable us to ascertain the purpose of the phrase.” (Commentary on Isaiah, Vol 2, p 180.)

When does this passage from Psalm 2 refer to?
Why do the heathen rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder,
and cast away their cords from us. (Psalm 2:1-3)​ 
We see it first fulfilled in Acts 4 when the apostles and their fellows prayed as they did in verses 23-39, quoting Psalm 2:1-2, referring to what befell Jesus a little while before.

We see another fulfillment at the very end of the church age, after the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] trumpet sounded in Rev 11:18, where Psalm 2 is clearly alluded to:
And *the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come*, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.​ 
The kings of the earth “shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison” (Isa 24:22) as they die all during the church age, as well as those—the entire mass of unregenerate, _kings included_—who war against the LORD and His Anointed at Armageddon, immediately prior to the white throne judgment.

With regard to the angelic beings who fell, spoken of in Isa 24:21, “the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high” binding them throughout the age, to be punished at the eschaton, is this not confirmed by 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 [cf. John 12:31, Col 2:15] ?

Is it not, on the face of it, far more in accord with other parts of God’s word, to say that Isa 24:22,
“And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited”​ 
refers to the vast bulk of the rebels all through the church age consigned to the pit—the abyss where the devils are likewise consigned—all awaiting the final Judgment? Though there is a full loosing of the devils at the very end of the age, in fulfillment of the Lord’s decrees (Rev 20:1-3, 7-9; 9:1-21).

There are no unregenerate survivors of Armageddon; “glorified millennial saints” walking the yet [mildly?] cursed earth with unregenerate survivors is but dark fantasy conjured up through neglecting to interpret Old Testament Kingdom prophecies with a New Covenant hermeneutic such as Christ and the NT writers display. These old ghosts of earlier error die hard.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Steve, I neglected to thank you for your informative reponses. I appreciate the effort!


----------



## RamistThomist

I do not find Young's analysis convincing, nor do I "hang the thread" on Isaiah 24 (side note: this represents a problem for interpretation. Anytime a premil is asked to find another proof-text besides Revealtion 20, we find it only to be told that isn't sufficient to build an entire scheme, which we never planned to do. Imagine if Covenant Theology were run through the same hermeneutic of suspicion! /end side note)

As I've said several times, I am not trying to defend the exegesis, but merely showing that given my exegesis, these aren't logical contradictions.

Kim Riddlebarger has said elsewhere that these discussions depend on prior hermeneuitcal presuppositions. I agree. I will go a step further. They depend on presuppositions concerning what is possible in ontology.


----------



## RamistThomist

And Steve, you know I love you even though we disagree. You do a lot of great work for the kingdom.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, I have respect and affection for you as well, but this is swordplay between friends, and we must have at it. 

I’m sorry but your approach to defending the Historic Premil is sort of like an ER doctor with a patient, running around giving him all sorts of shots and treatments, combing the hair of the patient, and tidying his gown, but the patient appears to be a corpse and the doc just keeps repeating “There are no logical contradictions in my efforts!”

The ER of sound doctrine is no place for philosophy, when what is at stake is a vision of the future based upon Scripture. In this ER all that matters is a hermeneutic that can stand up to sharp critical scrutiny.

I mention one remark of Young that is quite to the point and you deflect the common sense of it by saying his analysis is not convincing—I didn’t even bring anything of his analysis into the discussion. I but said, in effect, we do well to look at the context of the “many days” saying, when it might have begun.

This is a discussion between you and me (and Jim), not what transpires between amils and premils elsewhere in the universe or digital domains.

“Hermeneutics of suspicion”? What I suspect is the corpse is dead—it shows no sign of spiritual life, no sign of intact Scriptural coherence, just assertions that “logically” it is coherent, which assertion is not sufficient to maintain it is Scripturally alive. Them's just words.

“Hermeneutical presuppositions” by their nature must be built upon the word of God. They must be internally intact, that is, coherent and self-sustaining by demonstrating they rightly and adequately fulfil the Scripture. When differing “hermeneutical presuppositions” clash, the victor prevails by demonstrating the inadequacy of the Scriptural coherence of the other—meaning, it just doesn’t hold together—it has _fatal_ internal contradictions.

You seem to dance around rather plain exegesis with philosophical remarks which are really beside the exegetical points. They cannot bring the patient back to life.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I’m sorry but your approach to defending the Historic Premil is sort of like an ER doctor with a patient, running around giving him all sorts of shots and treatments, combing the hair of the patient, and tidying his gown, but the patient appears to be a corpse and the doc just keeps repeating “There are no logical contradictions in my efforts!”



My understanding in the OP was about logical consistency, which is what I was addressing. If I tried to address both the truth or falsity of historic premil and loggical consistency, the thread would get unwieldy.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

Nicholas Perella said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this could be differently phrased. I say this because unbelievers are a rebellion against King Jesus. That is what unbelief toward God is: rebellion against God.
Click to expand...


I do not see the logical consistency of what you, Jacob, said above. I thought you might have tried to phrase it differently. As Mr. Rafalsky said, only God's written Word is logically consistent, and to try to demonstrate without God's Word a logical consistency will in this fallen world be futile. The inconsistencies will arise without the standard, who is God, to back them up. Which I am sure this must be not unknown to you.


----------



## RamistThomist

In epistemology there are at least two approaches: coherentism and correspondence. Coherentism says a system can be true if it logically coheres. That is a _necessary_ condition for truth but not a _sufficient_ one. You are confusing the two. 



Nicholas Perella said:


> only God's written Word is logically consistent



"Only logically consistent" with respect to what? Are you a Clarkian? I think you are confusing the final source of theological authority with a system.

In any case, that claim is simply false. For example:

* Heliocentrism is logically self-consistent, yet the Bible doesn't teach it.
*geocentrism is logically self-consistent, yet is wrong.
*Hegelianism is logically self-consistent--indeed, that is the very point of Hegel's _Logic_, yet it is obviously wrong.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

I am not referring to general revelation, which is still based on God and His ways. I am referring to what God has revealed to us by His written Word in contrast to the statement of yours I quoted. To answer one of your questions: logically consistent in respect to God and His written Word. I am asking for you to demonstrate how your statement is logically consistent which it can only be in accord with God's written Word. Unless you are trying to tell me you know outside of His written Word as to how "unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King".



ReformedReidian said:


> Unbelievers cease their rebellion against Jesus King,





Nicholas Perella said:


> I say this because unbelievers are a rebellion against King Jesus. That is what unbelief toward God is: rebellion against God.


----------



## DMcFadden

ReformedReidian said:


> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My suspicion is that Ladd didn't really care. While he became the representative of Historic Premil, most premils thought he was just another amillennialist (and most of his exegesis tends to go that route).
Click to expand...


In my classes with Ladd and reading of his books, I would agree that he did not care about the question. Ladd was premil because . . . 1. He had a premil background in fundamentalism prior to his seminary and Harvard days, and 2. He did not know how to accommodate Rev. 20 into his eschatology otherwise.

Exegetically, it is almost as if Ladd was an inconsistent amillennialist who took Rev. 20 more literally. That makes him an inconsistent amillennialist or an inconsistent historic premillennialialist.


----------



## Edward

ReformedReidian said:


> Jesus King



That's a weird construct that I can't say that I've run across before. Perhaps I've been in Texas too long, but my first thought was 'Mexican mother and Anglo father?' Using common given and surnames in combination is likely to give rise to more confusion than clarity.


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show _where_ in Isaiah 24-27 you would go to support your views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isaiah 24:21ff
> 
> On that day the Lord will punish
> the host of heaven, in heaven,
> and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
> 22 They will be gathered together
> as prisoners in a pit;
> they will be shut up in a prison,
> and after many days they will be punished.
> 
> If the final punishment of the unregenerate happens simultaneously with other events, then it's hard to explain "the many days."
Click to expand...


I am at a loss to see where you think this teaches Premil. Where does it say that Satan will be released 1,000 years after Christ's Coming? Where does it say that devils will be released 1,000 years after Christ's Coming? 

Isaiah 14:15-18, Isaiah 24:21-22 and Isaiah 66:22-24 all correlate. When Jesus comes the demonic realm is destroyed by being banished to the Lake of Fire. None of the 3 parallel passages I presented (Isaiah 14:15-18, Isaiah 24:21-22 and Isaiah 66:22-24) make any mention of a future sin-cursed millennial period. That is because they relate to the new heavens and new earth. The wicked and the demons are placed as an eternal reminder to the righteous of the eternal justice of God.

Isaiah 14:15-18: “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. *They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?* All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.”

Isaiah 24:21-22: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And *they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.”*

Isaiah 66:22-24: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And *they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”*

Where is there any mention of any release of Satan and his demons? it is not there. This relates to the new earth, not some future millennium.


----------



## RamistThomist

Premils say the logic of it works like this (and as I've fruitlessly explained many times on this thread: I am merely clarifying premil thought. There are too many interesting issues in ontology and epistemology right now for me to go full throttle).

1. Satan is bound in prison (which presumably negates his influence)
2. Lengthy interval that isn't identical to a) the previous world era or b) the new heavens.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My suspicion is that Ladd didn't really care. While he became the representative of Historic Premil, most premils thought he was just another amillennialist (and most of his exegesis tends to go that route).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my classes with Ladd and reading of his books, I would agree that he did not care about the question. Ladd was premil because . . . 1. He had a premil background in fundamentalism prior to his seminary and Harvard days, and 2. He did not know how to accommodate Rev. 20 into his eschatology otherwise.
> 
> Exegetically, it is almost as if Ladd was an inconsistent amillennialist who took Rev. 20 more literally. That makes him an inconsistent amillennialist or an inconsistent historic premillennialialist.
Click to expand...


Since we are resurrecting this thread anyway... Dennis, with all of this in mind, on a scale of 1 to 5 how important are Ladd's books like "The Blessed Hope" and his commentary on Revelation?


----------



## DMcFadden

For the historic premil position, his books (excluding his commentary on Revelation) are a strong 5. He was practically the first guy with a recognized doctorate (Harvard) to make a case for the pre mil view. His "The Presence of the Future" is the most important of his eschatology studies. Even within the movement, the Revelation commenatary was deemed a weak contribution, however.


----------



## Toasty

Jimmy the Greek said:


> From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.



Do they all believe that the unregenerate will be a part of the millennial kingdom?


----------



## RamistThomist

Toasty said:


> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they all believe that the unregenerate will be a part of the millennial kingdom?
Click to expand...


It is logically possible. We don't think all unregenerate will be killed at Armageddon.


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have heard, Ladd never explained the existence of unregenerate humans in his millennial view, he just assumed it was true. I am not arguing for or against Historic Premill (although I am Amill). I am just asking how they logically get unregenerate people into thier millennium. Still havent heard an answer. But alas, Jacob is the only one answering for them here on the PB and I am reluctant to belabor the point. I have spent some time searching online to no avail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they all believe that the unregenerate will be a part of the millennial kingdom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is logically possible. We don't think all unregenerate will be killed at Armageddon.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your reply. 

But Revelation 19 conclude with the climactic return of Christ. After *“the marriage of the Lamb”* (Revelation 19:7), which is the glorification of the saints of all time (including the dead in Christ and the live in Christ), the saints return as an army (following Christ) to destroy the wicked. John sees *“heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True … And* *the armies* *which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean”* (11-14).

The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19. There are no wicked to inherit the millennium, as Premil contends. They are wiped. Everyone left behind will be completely consumed; the birds of heaven filling themselves with *“the flesh of all men.”* Significantly, the suffix *“both free and bond, both small and great” *is added in order to fully impress the enormity and all-inclusive nature of this feast. 

Christ is seen pouring out His wrath without mixture upon the nations as He smites them in His fury with *“a sharp sword”* that comes *“out of his mouth.”* He destroys them by the very utterance of His mouth. He then *“treadeth* (or tramples) *the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”* 

The two words interpreted “fierceness” and “wrath” here are _thumos_ and _orge_ which are regularly employed in the New Testament to mean ‘fierceness, indignation, wrath, indignation and vengeance’. The word _orge_ carries the additional meaning of ‘violent passion’. Clearly the Lord is not happy with those left behind. Like those left behind in Noah’s day and Sodom they face an awful end, as they receive the reward of their rejection of Christ. 

The picture being portrayed here is that of the grapes being crushed by the vineyard worker making wine. The reference to “the winepress” is symbolic language denoting the fate of the wicked when Christ appears – that is why it is called “_the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”_ The Christ-rejecter misses the catching away, and is consequently trampled underfoot like grapes being crushed in a winepress. The grapes are the disobedient of all nations. 

How can these rebels possibly escape such a furious end? True judgment and righteousness has now arrived in the form of Christ and the glorified saints. Like every other Second Coming passage, this is climactic language describing the final end of rebellious man.

Remember, the beast's army includes all the unelect. 

Revelation 13:3-4 states, *“all the world wondered* (_thaumazo_ or admired and marvelled) *after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast.”*

Revelation 13:8 states, *“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him *(the beast), *whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world**.”*

All non-believers will worship the beast and take his mark. It applies to all the unsaved.


----------



## RamistThomist

As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world." 



> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.


I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
Click to expand...


There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes. 

Christ destroys every enemy when He comes, the last enemy being death (Luke 20:34-36, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55, Romans 8:16-23, 1 Peter 1:3-5, Revelation 20:11-15 and Revelation 21:1-5). The age to come has no room for "time" (John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7), "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalms 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). 

Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 , 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 speak of the removal of the old corrupt heavens and earth and their replacement with the one-and-only new heavens and new earth being ushered in at the Second Coming.

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
Click to expand...


So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?



> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.



I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
Click to expand...


Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory. 

What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
Click to expand...


I think I made it clear (12th time, now?) why I haven't "satisfactorily" addressed those concerns.


----------



## Pilgrim

sovereigngrace said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
Click to expand...


I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. In case no one has ever told you, that is a very obnoxious practice.

Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious manner.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Pilgrim said:


> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.
Click to expand...


I just went to your link and I noticed that you were doing exactly what you were rebuking me for. Only you were promoting Premil. I therefore think your charge is unfair. I am simply engaging in a biblical discussion on a subject that was dear to the heart of many of the Reformers and sound believers since. I thought that was allowed here!


----------



## Captain Picard

Postmils be over here like


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went to your link and I noticed that you were doing exactly what you were rebuking me for. Only you were promoting Premil. I therefore think your charge is unfair. I am simply engaging in a biblical discussion on a subject that was dear to the heart of many of the Reformers and sound believers since. I thought that was allowed here!
Click to expand...


Chris has dealt with numerous other issues on his blog: Dabney, substitution, KJV/Biblical criticism, Southern Presbyterianism, and the like.

His point was every post you've made has been on one topic. Further, who is obligated to debate you and answer 425 questions? Honestly, who has that time?


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went to your link and I noticed that you were doing exactly what you were rebuking me for. Only you were promoting Premil. I therefore think your charge is unfair. I am simply engaging in a biblical discussion on a subject that was dear to the heart of many of the Reformers and sound believers since. I thought that was allowed here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris has dealt with numerous other issues on his blog: Dabney, substitution, KJV/Biblical criticism, Southern Presbyterianism, and the like.
> 
> His point was every post you've made has been on one topic. Further, who is obligated to debate you and answer 425 questions? Honestly, who has that time?
Click to expand...


Who said anyone is obligated? Where in Scripture or the rules of this board is it forbidden to discuss end-times? Obviously i have hit a raw nerve with you. Why engage when you have nothing to contribute but avoidance?


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went to your link and I noticed that you were doing exactly what you were rebuking me for. Only you were promoting Premil. I therefore think your charge is unfair. I am simply engaging in a biblical discussion on a subject that was dear to the heart of many of the Reformers and sound believers since. I thought that was allowed here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris has dealt with numerous other issues on his blog: Dabney, substitution, KJV/Biblical criticism, Southern Presbyterianism, and the like.
> 
> His point was every post you've made has been on one topic. Further, who is obligated to debate you and answer 425 questions? Honestly, who has that time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anyone is obligated? Where in Scripture or the rules of this board is it forbidden to discuss end-times? Obviously i have hit a raw nerve with you. Why engage when you have nothing to contribute but avoidance?
Click to expand...


My apologies then about the obligation. I thought your repeated (and only) postings about eschatology was simply baiting the premils out. You haven't hit a raw nerve with me simply because I do not care (if I did care I would engage your postings in more detail). I am currently engaged in a project on how mutations withing 3rd and 4th century Christian Neo-Platonism allows us an apologetics against nihilism. Premil discussions are far down on my list.

I simply commented because I knew I could explicate aspects of the premil system. Whether they are logically coherent in the long run is not my concern. I was just, per the OP, explaining a few things.


----------



## RamistThomist

ReformedReidian said:


> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went to your link and I noticed that you were doing exactly what you were rebuking me for. Only you were promoting Premil. I therefore think your charge is unfair. I am simply engaging in a biblical discussion on a subject that was dear to the heart of many of the Reformers and sound believers since. I thought that was allowed here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris has dealt with numerous other issues on his blog: Dabney, substitution, KJV/Biblical criticism, Southern Presbyterianism, and the like.
> 
> His point was every post you've made has been on one topic. Further, who is obligated to debate you and answer 425 questions? Honestly, who has that time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anyone is obligated? Where in Scripture or the rules of this board is it forbidden to discuss end-times? Obviously i have hit a raw nerve with you. Why engage when you have nothing to contribute but avoidance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am currently engaged in a project on how mutations withing 3rd and 4th century Christian Neo-Platonism allows us an apologetics against nihilism. Premil discussions are far down on my list.
Click to expand...


The reference to Neo-Platonism isn't accidental on my part. If I were to become amillennial, it would be because of my readings in Plato and Neo-Platonism (I know, we should change a position because of an honest and neutral reading of Scripture, but Van Til taught us that isn't possible). When amils say "It's a spiritual interpretation," I, as a Neo-Platonist, have no clue what they are talking about. I can think of many different (and contrary) definitions of "spiritual" and I don't know which one to choose.


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> For the historic premil position, his books (excluding his commentary on Revelation) are a strong 5. He was practically the first guy with a recognized doctorate (Harvard) to make a case for the pre mil view. His "The Presence of the Future" is the most important of his eschatology studies. Even within the movement, the Revelation commenatary was deemed a weak contribution, however.



I think this is the case in the 2nd half of the 20th Century. And I"m guessing that's mostly what you have in mind. 

Although he is a notorious figure in American Presbyterian history, (and rightly so) the post-tribulationalist Charles Erdman had an earned doctorate from Princeton, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure how many of the the older premils in North America had earned doctorates. (In a quick internet search for several, I find that wiki and other sources will often simply note what institution was attended (Princeton, Cambridge, Trinity College, Dublin, etc.) but does not state what degree was earned, if any.) But I would think that some of the older premils from the 18th and 19th centuries (and if they aren't "historic" who is?) from the British Isles and the continent had doctorates or else were awarded honorary doctorates back when that practice had legitimacy. I'm thinking of Zahn, Alford, Bengel, Auberlen, Ebrard, Hofmann, Lange, Ellicott and others. Others such as Gill (and Tregelles?) were largely autodidacts whose scholarship rivaled or excelled that of many men who had earned doctorates or the equivalent. 

Was Ladd's Revelation commentary aimed at the academy or a wider audience? Of course, "weakness" should not be excused regardless.


----------



## Pilgrim

sovereigngrace said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sovereigngrace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed know, "World doesn't always mean world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beast's army is totally destroyed in Revelation 19.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt every unregenerate person on earth was in the Beast's Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two armies in Rev 19: Christ's and the beast's. I have shown you that the beast's army commands the allegiance of all the wicked. You have yet to address that (or any of my past post). What is more, this fits with repeated Scripture that shows all teh wicked are destroyed when Jesus comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, about 4 billion people will be camped around Har Meggido?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to start using this as my scripture and post it when anyone disagrees with me. No, I didn't address all the verses because I don't have the time (and I suppose I can tag verses, too). As I've said about ten times in this thread, I am merely explicating what premils believe. I have too much going on in apologetics and philosophy to devote time to eschatology debates, which, to quote Amil Ridderbarger, are usually pointless because there are presuppositions operating which usually trump any surface level textual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is saturated in symbolism depicting spiritual truths and spiritual events. The battle at the end is not physical but spiritual. What you have not satisfactorily addressed is the fact the beast commands the allegiance of all the wicked (those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the earth). This negates the Premil theory.
> 
> What is more, you have no direct response to the Scripture I present that forbids Premil. All you are furnishing me with is personal commentary. But Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went to your link and I noticed that you were doing exactly what you were rebuking me for. Only you were promoting Premil. I therefore think your charge is unfair. I am simply engaging in a biblical discussion on a subject that was dear to the heart of many of the Reformers and sound believers since. I thought that was allowed here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris has dealt with numerous other issues on his blog: Dabney, substitution, KJV/Biblical criticism, Southern Presbyterianism, and the like.
> 
> His point was every post you've made has been on one topic. Further, who is obligated to debate you and answer 425 questions? Honestly, who has that time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anyone is obligated? Where in Scripture or the rules of this board is it forbidden to discuss end-times? Obviously i have hit a raw nerve with you. Why engage when you have nothing to contribute but avoidance?
Click to expand...


If you don't like the word "obligation" then "insistence" works just as well, as you are basically insisting in this post that Jacob "engage" to your satisfaction or else shut up. I haven't read every post in this thread. But as I understand it, the OP was mostly asking for information. And it seems that is what Jacob was attempting to provide, perhaps in part because no one else was likely to contribute, particularly from a premil perspective. 

It is not at all forbidden to discuss eschatology here unless one is advocating dispensationalism, full preterism or date setting (e.g. Camping.) There are many threads on the issue. However, unless there is a new champion for the cause here that I don't know about who somehow has missed this thread, (I'm doing good to log on once a month these days) a debate on premillennialism is just not going to happen in this forum under the present circumstances. That is, unless it is an argument among non premils about whether or not a Historic Premil can subscribe to a Reformed confession. (There have been at least a few threads in recent years in which that has been discussed at length.)

Why isn't there going to be the level of engagement you are looking for? It is because there are very few premils here (perhaps 5 or less semi-regular posters?) and even less who can or will devote the time. Although it is generally to our detriment, in my opinion, one of the biggest weaknesses of HP is that many of us rarely engage the issue unless it is to denounce pre-trib yet again. For many of us, it is way down the list of doctrines that we spend time considering. 

As for me, I have amassed a relatively large library of eschatology books from various perspectives in recent years, but I have barely scratched the surface when it comes to actually engaging them, to borrow a term. As for my blog, many of the recent posts there have been on eschatological themes, but I haven't posted anything at all (on any subject) in over 11 months. I've spent far more time on ecclesiology through the years, both here and on the blog. I've posted more on sanctification, at least here. Many of the posts tagged "eschatology" on the blog are only tangentially related to the issue. The theme there, if any, is whatever happens to be of interest to me at any given point. I didn't grow up under premillennial preaching or teaching and I don't think I seriously engaged with any premillennial literature until about 2009. (And I haven't devoted much time to it in the last 4 years or so.) Prior to that, I was amillennial.

If you are looking to duke it out with premils, you've got a much better chance at getting as much engagement as you can handle in several FB groups dedicated to theology or eschatology (although several of the premil groups are not debate groups) or else somewhere like the Baptist Board.


----------



## RamistThomist

Or challenge Paul Henebury to a debate.


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> Or challenge Paul Henebury to a debate.



Does he post here? Sorry. I cannot say I know him.


----------



## sovereigngrace

Pilgrim said:


> If you don't like the word "obligation" then "insistence" works just as well, as you are basically insisting in this post that Jacob "engage" to your satisfaction or else shut up. I haven't read every post in this thread. But as I understand it, the OP was mostly asking for information. And it seems that is what Jacob was attempting to provide, perhaps in part because no one else was likely to contribute, particularly from a premil perspective.
> 
> It is not at all forbidden to discuss eschatology here unless one is advocating dispensationalism, full preterism or date setting (e.g. Camping.) There are many threads on the issue. However, unless there is a new champion for the cause here that I don't know about who somehow has missed this thread, (I'm doing good to log on once a month these days) a debate on premillennialism is just not going to happen in this forum under the present circumstances. That is, unless it is an argument among non premils about whether or not a Historic Premil can subscribe to a Reformed confession. (There have been at least a few threads in recent years in which that has been discussed at length.)
> 
> Why isn't there going to be the level of engagement you are looking for? It is because there are very few premils here (perhaps 5 or less semi-regular posters?) and even less who can or will devote the time. Although it is generally to our detriment, in my opinion, one of the biggest weaknesses of HP is that many of us rarely engage the issue unless it is to denounce pre-trib yet again. For many of us, it is way down the list of doctrines that we spend time considering.
> 
> As for me, I have amassed a relatively large library of eschatology books from various perspectives in recent years, but I have barely scratched the surface when it comes to actually engaging them, to borrow a term. As for my blog, many of the recent posts there have been on eschatological themes, but I haven't posted anything at all (on any subject) in over 11 months. I've spent far more time on ecclesiology through the years, both here and on the blog. I've posted more on sanctification, at least here. Many of the posts tagged "eschatology" on the blog are only tangentially related to the issue. The theme there, if any, is whatever happens to be of interest to me at any given point. I didn't grow up under premillennial preaching or teaching and I don't think I seriously engaged with any premillennial literature until about 2009. (And I haven't devoted much time to it in the last 4 years or so.) Prior to that, I was amillennial.
> 
> If you are looking to duke it out with premils, you've got a much better chance at getting as much engagement as you can handle in several FB groups dedicated to theology or eschatology (although several of the premil groups are not debate groups) or else somewhere like the Baptist Board.



I have had an interest in eschatology for about 15 years. I have moved from Pretrib/Premil to Posttrib/Premil to a Posttrib/Amil/Idealist through my own studies. I have never pretended to have all the answers but I feel I have finally arrived at the truth of God on this.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or challenge Paul Henebury to a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he post here? Sorry. I cannot say I know him.
Click to expand...


I doubt it, though I was off PB for about 6 years. He is the most competent premillennialist around. He just happens to have a non-accredited degree, so he isn't recognized (but he brings more to the table)


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> I doubt it, though I was off PB for about 6 years. He is the most competent premillennialist around. He just happens to have a non-accredited degree, so he isn't recognized (but he brings more to the table)



Would be happy to debate him. I have engaged in several online debates on the issue. I have been writing on this for a while.


----------



## Edward

Come on, Chris, Jacob, and Paul - time to quit cutting and pasting the whole post - the earliest items are totally unreadable in your reply, and anyone interested can scroll up the thread to see the earlier exchanges. If you think you are making points somehow, you aren't. 

Cut and paste the comment (or portion thereof) that you are replying to.


----------



## RamistThomist

My own timeline. I started out roughly theonomic postmil then shifted to a vaguely Augustinian take on the millennium (but with very definite views on Antichrist!) to a loosely historic premil. I say that simply because I am not committed to any one system. Most of premil works with me and the difficulties in it aren't any worse than other systems. 

But it's not my main point of history. Philosophical theology patristics and the like are and that takes up most of my time.


----------



## RamistThomist

Edward said:


> Come on, Chris, Jacob, and Paul - time to quit cutting and pasting the whole post - the earliest items are totally unreadable in your reply, and anyone interested can scroll up the thread to see the earlier exchanges. If you think you are making points somehow, you aren't.
> 
> Cut and paste the comment (or portion thereof) that you are replying to.



I actually thought it looked kind of neat--and since I am not debating a single topic or point right now, nothing is lost


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> My own timeline. I started out roughly theonomic postmil then shifted to a vaguely Augustinian take on the millennium (but with very definite views on Antichrist!) to a loosely historic premil. I say that simply because I am not committed to any one system. Most of premil works with me and the difficulties in it aren't any worse than other systems.
> 
> But it's not my main point of history. Philosophical theology patristics and the like are and that takes up most of my time.



I am actually studying the eschatology of the church fathers over the first 400 since the cross. I was under the false impression when I started they were mainly Premil. i have since learned: they were not. They were mainly Amil from what I can see.


----------



## RamistThomist

sovereigngrace said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> My own timeline. I started out roughly theonomic postmil then shifted to a vaguely Augustinian take on the millennium (but with very definite views on Antichrist!) to a loosely historic premil. I say that simply because I am not committed to any one system. Most of premil works with me and the difficulties in it aren't any worse than other systems.
> 
> But it's not my main point of history. Philosophical theology patristics and the like are and that takes up most of my time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually studying the eschatology of the church fathers over the first 400 since the cross. I was under the false impression when I started they were mainly Premil. i have since learned: they were not. They were mainly Amil from what I can see.
Click to expand...


It's a mixed bag. I try to avoid things like "The fathers say..." because a) it is a Eastern Orthodox method and b) the fathers usually don't speak uniformly on complex doctrine early on.

St Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were definitely premil. They acknowledge, however, that there are other views. That right there means there is no uniformity. Scholars have said Methodius of Olympus and St Cyril of Jerusalem (not Alexandria) were premil. I'm not so sure. They all have exciting views of the Tribulation (and they all believe in a definite Tribulation period) but they don't have any clear millennial frameworks. 

In the West Augustine dominated and few would challenge that paradigm. In the East eschatology was more along the lines of a) condemning Origen's _apakastasis_ and b) condemning the vaguely-defined Chiliasts. 

Now to throw a few monkey wrenches into everything. 

1. Regardless of where they landed on millennial frameworks, they all held to a mutation of futurist/historist interpretation.
2. British monks made many historicistic prophecies about the end times (some of which have been fulfilled). 

In other words, this might be "amillennialism," but it's not the academic tenured respectable amillennialism. St Cyril of Jerusalem said we will fight Antichrist in his person.


----------



## RamistThomist

ReformedReidian said:


> They all have exciting views of the Tribulation (and they all believe in a definite Tribulation period) but they don't have any clear millennial frameworks.



I guess that would be my own position.


----------



## sovereigngrace

ReformedReidian said:


> It's a mixed bag. I try to avoid things like "The fathers say..." because a) it is a Eastern Orthodox method and b) the fathers usually don't speak uniformly on complex doctrine early on.
> 
> St Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were definitely premil. They acknowledge, however, that there are other views. That right there means there is no uniformity. Scholars have said Methodius of Olympus and St Cyril of Jerusalem (not Alexandria) were premil. I'm not so sure. They all have exciting views of the Tribulation (and they all believe in a definite Tribulation period) but they don't have any clear millennial frameworks.
> 
> In the West Augustine dominated and few would challenge that paradigm. In the East eschatology was more along the lines of a) condemning Origen's _apakastasis_ and b) condemning the vaguely-defined Chiliasts.
> 
> Now to throw a few monkey wrenches into everything.
> 
> 1. Regardless of where they landed on millennial frameworks, they all held to a mutation of futurist/historist interpretation.
> 2. British monks made many historicistic prophecies about the end times (some of which have been fulfilled).
> 
> In other words, this might be "amillennialism," but it's not the academic tenured respectable amillennialism. St Cyril of Jerusalem said we will fight Antichrist in his person.



I do not believe Cyril of Jerusalem was Premil (or Chiliast). What is your evidence? My findings are:

*Asia Minor*

Papias 
Hierapolis, Turkey
(A.D. 98-117
Justin Martyr
Asia Minor
(AD 100-166)
Irenaeus 
Bishop of Lyons, Gaul, (now France)
(AD 150)
Aviricius Marcellus
Bishop of Hieropolis, Lesser Phrygia, Asia Minor
(flourished 163AD)
Methodius 
Bishop of Olympus, Asia Minor
(died 311 A.D).

*Europe*

Hippolytus
Rome, Italy
(AD 170 – 236)
Victorinus
Pettau, Hungary
(270AD)
Gaudentius
Bishop of Brescia, Italy
(Bishop from about 387 until his death 410)

*Africa*

Tertullian
Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia)
(AD 145-260)
Commodianus
Africa
(wrote between AD 251 and 258)
Lactantius
Africa
(250 - 317 AD)
Quintus Julius Hilarianus
Africa
(written AD 397)

*Egypt*

Nepos
Egyptian bishop
(AD 230-250)


----------

