# Quick Survey on Eschatological Positions of Current Board Regulars



## Vox Oculi

Where does the community of PuritanBoard stand with regard to their eschatology?

Amil, Premil, Postmil? Preterite, Partial Preterite, Historical Premillennialism? Pre, post, mid-trib or pre-wrath Rapture? Literal Millennium or not?

Also, out of curiosity, since people seem to divide the following ways: Covenant Theology with Amillennialism, and Dispensationalism with Premillennialism, I'm curious if anyone comes down another way.

Short question to answer in the comments: what are you actually expecting in terms of what the next 20-80 years in the future will bring?

Useful reading regardless of one's view:

_Why Study Eschatology?_


> *Reason Three: God Put It In The Bible*
> 
> Again, I don’t mean to sound like a wise guy here, but hopefully the strength of this point is its obviousness. If the Holy Spirit saw fit to fill the pages of the Bible with abundant (and I do mean abundant) references to the last-days, then why do the vast majority of Christians pass over these portions of Scripture? Why do so many Christians tend to be a bit cynical or dismissive when it comes to, for instance, the Book of Revelation? While God never says explicitly, “thou shall study eschatology”, He may as well have said it by simple virtue of the fact that He gave it such a place of prominence in the Bible. We must ask ourselves, “If God doesn’t want me to study and understand this stuff, then what is it there for?” Think about this fact: Over twenty-five percent of the verses in the Bible contain predictive/prophetic content 2 If we disregard that twenty-five percent (along with of course, those infamous and pesky genealogies) then we can significantly whittle the Bible down quite a bit. But before we do that, I suppose we’ll have to first toss out that verse that says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Sorry, I guess I was trying to be a wise guy after all… My apologies.


----------



## sojournercp

Amil here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vox Oculi

This is my first time trying a poll, so apologies if something goes wrong


----------



## Darryl Le Roux

I have never been set in what I believe. I can, however, say that I am making it a main priority over these next three months. 

/I used to be premil, but that has since changed, and I am now in limbo.


----------



## Vox Oculi

Darryl Le Roux said:


> I have never been set in what I believe. I can, however, say that I am making it a main priority over these next three months.
> 
> /I used to be premil, but that has since changed, and I am now in limbo.



I think a lot of assertions made by people who are premillennial have been wildly mistaken and often wholly unnecessary, but furthermore, not a direct outworking from the plain statements of the text - and so, I find that there is much that one can dispute in modern American eschatological predictions/assertions without being required to abandon the entire framework of a premillennial eschatology.

For example, it is true that the formation of the present state of Israel is significant. But it is not a complete fulfillment of the prophecy that the Jewish people would be gathered together in Israel again. At best, it is a partial fulfillment. There are no sacrifices at present, nor a temple for them to be offered at, so one could not be fully accurate in saying that Israel of the Old Testament has been reborn as yet. The existence of Jews in the land of Israel is strong circumstantial evidence for the impending fulfillment of prophecies regarding National Israel, but to trumpet it as a fulfilled prophecy is to be hasty and ultimately disrespectful of the text. The Scripture is greater than the vacuity of human excitement.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Historicist PostMill


----------



## RamistThomist

Tentatively historic premil, though I've been reading heavily in Milbank's re-reading of Augustine's take on "peace." So who knows where I will end up.



Vox Oculi said:


> For example, it is true that the formation of the present state of Israel is significant. But it is not a complete fulfillment of the prophecy that the Jewish people would be gathered together in Israel again. At best, it is a partial fulfillment. There are no sacrifices at present, nor a temple for them to be offered at, so one could not be fully accurate in saying that Israel of the Old Testament has been reborn as yet. The existence of Jews in the land of Israel is strong circumstantial evidence for the impending fulfillment of prophecies regarding National Israel, but to trumpet it as a fulfilled prophecy is to be hasty and ultimately disrespectful of the text. The Scripture is greater than the vacuity of human excitement.



Historic Premil might have problems, but it doesn't have _those_ problems. You have described American Dispensational Premil.


----------



## Justified

ReformedReidian said:


> Tentatively historic premil, though I've been reading heavily in Milbank's re-reading of Augustine's take on "peace." So who knows where I will end up.


I will pray for your conversion, Jacob


----------



## Vox Oculi

Lemme recommend John MacArthur as a premillennial who is definitely not whimsical in his choice of adherence. There are at least a few youtube audios of him speaking on the subject. One's even entitled, "why every calvinist should be a premillennialist." Just to make you curious.


----------



## Peairtach

Postmil, me.


----------



## RamistThomist

Vox Oculi said:


> Lemme recommend John MacArthur as a premillennial who is definitely not whimsical in his choice of adherence. There are at least a few youtube audios of him speaking on the subject. One's even entitled, "why every calvinist should be a premillennialist." Just to make you curious.



I've heard it. I've gone through the audio of his Revelation series.


----------



## Paul1976

Cautiously Amil


----------



## TylerRay

I don't know just how to vote. I hold to a triumphalist eschatology and an idealist reading of Revelation. Idealist/Postmillennialist? Optimistic Amillenialist?

By the way, my spellcheck thinks that "postmillennialist" should be "postmenopausal." I am certainly _not_ postmenopausal.


----------



## arapahoepark

Partial Preterist Amil.


----------



## johnny

Vox Oculi said:


> Lemme recommend John MacArthur as a premillennial who is definitely not whimsical in his choice of adherence. There are at least a few youtube audios of him speaking on the subject. One's even entitled, "why every calvinist should be a premillennialist." Just to make you curious.



Thanks Vox for the recommendation but I find John MacArthur's eschatology both dangerous and misleading.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

It would be best if the Poll distinguished between Dispensational Premillennialism and Historic Premillennialism.

I am Amillennial.


----------



## Captain Picard

Postmil, but with a pretty big conviction that the "beasts kingdom" will still exists in some form until the Second Coming.

In terms of hermeneutic, I'm a partial-preterist, but "Revelation Idealism" I think is a real thing.


----------



## Logan

Vox Oculi said:


> Lemme recommend John MacArthur as a premillennial who is definitely not whimsical in his choice of adherence. There are at least a few youtube audios of him speaking on the subject. One's even entitled, "why every calvinist should be a premillennialist." Just to make you curious.



I listened to it a few days after he delivered that message at the Shepherd's Conference and was extremely disappointed in the strawman arguments he made. I usually enjoy MacArthur but that would be an exception. It is in this area that MacArthur's dispensationalist roots are most strongly exhibited. Kim Riddlebarger had a thoughtful response.


----------



## Jake

Stephen L Smith said:


> It would be best if the Poll distinguished between Dispensational Premillennialism and Historic Premillennialism.
> 
> I am Amillennial.



I really doubt you could subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions for this board in any meaningful way and be a dispensationalist.


----------



## Cymro

Long time convinced Amill.


----------



## PaulMc

Another amil here.


----------



## Hamalas

I just recently came down as Amil.


----------



## Justified

Idealist amil.


----------



## RamistThomist

Also, not every posting of an event necessarily has theological baggage behind it. For example, I believe the Temple will be rebuilt by the Jews (funded by the American taxpayer) because that is what the Jews want. I believe it is a bad thing, but my believing it will happen is independent of Dispensational excitement.


----------



## MW

"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." This indicates to me that every Christian implicitly believes in something that is already realised in Christ. Whether he articulates it correctly is another matter.


----------



## ZackF

Vox Oculi said:


> Where does the community of PuritanBoard stand with regard to their eschatology?
> 
> Amil, Premil, Postmil? Preterite, Partial Preterite, Historical Premillennialism? Pre, post, mid-trib or pre-wrath Rapture? Literal Millennium or not?
> 
> Also, out of curiosity, since people seem to divide the following ways: Covenant Theology with Amillennialism, and Dispensationalism with Premillennialism, I'm curious if anyone comes down another way.
> 
> Short question to answer in the comments: what are you actually expecting in terms of what the next 20-80 years in the future will bring?
> 
> Useful reading regardless of one's view:
> 
> _Why Study Eschatology?_
> 
> 
> 
> *Reason Three: God Put It In The Bible*
> 
> Again, I don’t mean to sound like a wise guy here, but hopefully the strength of this point is its obviousness. If the Holy Spirit saw fit to fill the pages of the Bible with abundant (and I do mean abundant) references to the last-days, then why do the vast majority of Christians pass over these portions of Scripture? Why do so many Christians tend to be a bit cynical or dismissive when it comes to, for instance, the Book of Revelation? While God never says explicitly, “thou shall study eschatology”, He may as well have said it by simple virtue of the fact that He gave it such a place of prominence in the Bible. We must ask ourselves, “If God doesn’t want me to study and understand this stuff, then what is it there for?” Think about this fact: Over twenty-five percent of the verses in the Bible contain predictive/prophetic content 2 If we disregard that twenty-five percent (along with of course, those infamous and pesky genealogies) then we can significantly whittle the Bible down quite a bit. But before we do that, I suppose we’ll have to first toss out that verse that says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Sorry, I guess I was trying to be a wise guy after all… My apologies.
Click to expand...


Why do you have more options in your post than poll?


----------



## Vox Oculi

ZackF said:


> Why do you have more options in your post than poll?



It was my first time trying a poll (I wasn't sure how it would post but now I know that you create the poll after hitting 'submit new thread'), and didn't want to put in lots of effort to get it all right and something go wrong. So I elected to go with the broad categories--since I hoped people would specify in their post.


----------



## lynnie

I think when you say post mil you need to separate into the theonomist post mil and the non theonomy. Hubby went post mil gradually over the period of a year or two (he was amil)but isn't theonomist. 

And for amil, our pastor calls himself an optimistic amil, and anticipates a great harvest of souls much like a post mil. I am in that category, I think. Some post mils make disparaging remarks about amils who are just hanging on while the world gets worse and worse until Jesus comes back, but you can be amil and yet pray for great revival with optimistic faith. 

I happen to think we are probably at the end of the mil when Satan gets unloosed, and we see that happening with Islam, and hatred of Christianity in the former western nations. I am very concerned about nuclear weapons and power plants, and fallout as a drastic future scenario unknown in all of history (unless they had nukes before Noah). But I am optimistic for revival. 

I think if you do not believe in a pretrib or midtrib rapture, you are in a small minority compared to all the Dispensationalists. So amils and historic premils and postmils need to stick together!!


----------



## Ed Walsh

lynnie said:


> our pastor calls himself an optimistic amil



I voted postmil, but am I really an "optimistic amil," since I think we are in the millennium now. Does that make me amil even though I have grandiose hopes for the future?" E.g.' Conversion of national Israel, Isaiah 2, etc.


----------



## Vox Oculi

Interesting. I think I'm getting some new information in regard to what amillennials believe. I would've thought their eschatology to be entirely figurative, but the way some of you have commented makes your future expectations much more resemble dispensational premillennialism (future calamity, a Beast, salvation of ethnic Israel, a rebuilt Temple) than I would have inferred based on my understanding of what amillennialism is.

Would that mean that an amillennial could be almost identical in persuasion to a pretrib, premil "Dispensational" with the one exception being that upon Christ's 2nd coming, He ushers in eternity immediately rather than a thousand year parenthesis?

Anyone want to take a shot at that?


----------



## jwithnell

Not at all. Jesus' ascension is also his coronation. What had been a provincial body of believers of basically one nationality has gone beyond all borders to all nations. However, the tribulation is an ongoing reality of believers living in a fallen world awaiting the full consumation of Jesus and His church at His second advent. You might want to give a listen to the series of sermons Dr. Sinclair Ferguson gives on the book of Revelation, available at Sermon Audio. Where you might encounter some exegetical challenges comes in dealing with Romans 11 and what appears to be a future awakening among ethnic Jews through the work of Christ. I found Dr. John Murray to be helpful in his commentary on Romans. (I'm not saying that Roman 11 creates challenges for an amil position; I've experienced it as a difficult passage period.)


----------



## Peairtach

Greg Bahnsen's tape series on Revelation taught me about the early date for Revelation and the importance of preterism. 

Bahnsen and an article by Robert Thomas taught me that the Seven Seals, Trumpets and Bowls do not telescope or strictly parallel but are consecutive in the book and the book shows some sense of historical progress from the first century to the distant future.

James Madison MacDonald's "A Key to the Book of Revelation" - commended by Charles Hodge in a note to his section on eschatology in his "Systematic Theology" - taught me that you can have preterist views without squeezing the whole of chapters 6 to 19 into the first century (a la Gentry) or before the fall of the Western Empire ( a la Bahnsen).

Thus I take a somewhat eclectic view of the central section of Revelation (pretero-historico-futuro-idealo view).



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Vox Oculi

Without meaning to tempt someone into a debate, but offering something to be commented on:

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience. 

It seems to me that one would have to allegorize the prophecies of wild animals becoming docile, men living to be over 100 regularly, and widespread peace (unless one concludes that Isaiah isn't talking about the Millennium--but if he weren't, he would be describing people dying in eternity...so thence, a conundrum), with the famine, abortion, warfare, rampant false religion, clearly dangerous animals, short lifespans, etc that are obvious today. Otherwise it would seem obvious that Christ is not presently the immediate ruler of earth, if the prophecies are expected to be literal (as the prophecies of His first advent certainly were). Further, how does one reconcile the statement that Satan is the "god of this world," (2 Cor 4:4) simultaneous with a supposed rule of Christ _of this world?_

I'm not bringing up those objections to start an argument, but to simply make an appeal, and express that I don't understand how one can see Christ as "on the throne" in the sense that's associated with millennial prophecies.

So, for response, if someone would, I'd ask for them to reflect on what positive thing it was that persuaded one most in favor of the "now on the throne" belief? Rather than ask for a specific rebuttal to the above paragraph. What was the clincher--if it was a theological persuasion and not, as I certainly suspect must be true for some, a rejection of the tendency in Dispensational settings to make much too big a deal of America as a special nation in prophecy...

Pardon if that was a bit too rambly/too much at once.


----------



## Ed Walsh

*Some Food for Thought*



Vox Oculi said:


> In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.



I will take your phrase "actual experience" as key to what I write. I want to mention a few scriptures about how "experience" affects psychology.

Exodus 6:8-9
8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.
9 And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.

Things were not going so well for people of God. Their experience in verse 9 caused them to disbelieve (disobey) the promise of verse 8.

Here’s a better example. It is what I like to call the Great Commission of the Old Testament.

Numbers 13:1-2
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.

Do you see it? “…Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel:”

Granted, we have a more robust Great Commission in the New Testament: Matthew 28:18-20 But it was an oft-repeated promise that God gave to the men of Israel in old times.

What was the result of the 12 spies that searched out the land?

Numbers 13:27-32
27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.
30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
(See Numbers 14:1-4 for more of their bad report and even worse behavior.)

The spies looked at the outward condition of Canaan and disbelieved the promise of God.

Moses and Aaron, “fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.” (Numbers 14:5)

Next: The ratio is always something like 10 to 2 who are in unbelief.

Joshua and Caleb, the two who believed, “rent their clothes” (Numbers 14:6), and said:

Numbers 14:7-9
7 And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land.
8 If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
9 Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not.

But who did the vast majority believe?

Numbers 14:10
But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the Lord appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.

And what did God think of all this commotion?

Numbers 14:11-12
11 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

Just keep reading the rest of Numbers 14:11-45 It is very telling interpreted of how God took the unbelief of the people. Everyone 20 and older would have to die in the wilderness over the next 40 years; a year for every day they searched out the land.

What did God think of the ten spies who brought an evil report?

Numbers 14:36-37
36 And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
37 Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the Lord.

Only Joshua and Caleb believed in their "Great Commission."

There’s more, but this post is too long already.

Check out my signature for my view of the future.

We have a Greater Commission and an all-powerful God.

Yes. The ratio is always about ten to two. I want to be of the two. How about you?


----------



## Peairtach

Vox Oculi said:


> Without meaning to tempt someone into a debate, but offering something to be commented on:
> 
> In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.
> 
> It seems to me that one would have to allegorize the prophecies of wild animals becoming docile, men living to be over 100 regularly, and widespread peace (unless one concludes that Isaiah isn't talking about the Millennium--but if he weren't, he would be describing people dying in eternity...so thence, a conundrum), with the famine, abortion, warfare, rampant false religion, clearly dangerous animals, short lifespans, etc that are obvious today. Otherwise it would seem obvious that Christ is not presently the immediate ruler of earth, if the prophecies are expected to be literal (as the prophecies of His first advent certainly were). Further, how does one reconcile the statement that Satan is the "god of this world," (2 Cor 4:4) simultaneous with a supposed rule of Christ _of this world?_
> 
> I'm not bringing up those objections to start an argument, but to simply make an appeal, and express that I don't understand how one can see Christ as "on the throne" in the sense that's associated with millennial prophecies.
> 
> So, for response, if someone would, I'd ask for them to reflect on what positive thing it was that persuaded one most in favor of the "now on the throne" belief? Rather than ask for a specific rebuttal to the above paragraph. What was the clincher--if it was a theological persuasion and not, as I certainly suspect must be true for some, a rejection of the tendency in Dispensational settings to make much too big a deal of America as a special nation in prophecy...
> 
> Pardon if that was a bit too rambly/too much at once.



Spme of your points may be answered from my amil-postmil perspective in that although Christ is ruling and reigning from the first century onwards, He didn't convert the whole world at once in the first century but is progressively converting the world (e.g. I Cor 15:25).

Also e.g., the Devil's binding is progressive:

And he laid hold on the dragon,

and bound him a thousand years

And cast him into the bottomless pit

and shut him up,

and set a seal upon him,
(Revelation 20:2-3)

Notice too that the growth of the leaven in three measures of meal is progressive, and the growth of the mustard tree. Also the growth of the stone cut without hands into a mountain (Daniel 2).

Much more could be said.

By amil/postmil, I mean that some of the older postmils would talk about the Millennium beginning e.g. when the Jews were converted or when the Papacy fell.

Most (all?) modern postmils believe that the Millennium began in principle in the first century, but is realised in history to greater degrees slowly but surely.


----------



## Peairtach

Ed Walsh said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will take your phrase "actual experience" as key to what I write. I want to mention a few scriptures about how "experience" affects psychology.
> 
> Exodus 6:8-9
> 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.
> 9 And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.
> 
> Things were not going so well for people of God. Their experience in verse 9 caused them to disbelieve (disobey) the promise of verse 8.
> 
> Here’s a better example. It is what I like to call the Great Commission of the Old Testament.
> 
> Numbers 13:1-2
> 1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
> 2 Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.
> 
> Do you see it? “…Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel:”
> 
> Granted, we have a more robust Great Commission in the New Testament: Matthew 28:18-20 But it was an oft-repeated promise that God gave to the men of Israel in old times.
> 
> What was the result of the 12 spies that searched out the land?
> 
> Numbers 13:27-32
> 27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
> 28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
> 29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.
> 30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
> 31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
> 32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
> (See Numbers 14:1-4 for more of their bad report and even worse behavior.)
> 
> The spies looked at the outward condition of Canaan and disbelieved the promise of God.
> 
> Moses and Aaron, “fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.” (Numbers 14:5)
> 
> Next: The ratio is always something like 10 to 2 who are in unbelief.
> 
> Joshua and Caleb, the two who believed, “rent their clothes” (Numbers 14:6), and said:
> 
> Numbers 14:7-9
> 7 And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land.
> 8 If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
> 9 Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not.
> 
> But who did the vast majority believe?
> 
> Numbers 14:10
> But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the Lord appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.
> 
> And what did God think of all this commotion?
> 
> Numbers 14:11-12
> 11 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
> 12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.
> 
> Just keep reading the rest of Numbers 14:11-45 It is very telling interpreted of how God took the unbelief of the people. Everyone 20 and older would have to die in the wilderness over the next 40 years; a year for every day they searched out the land.
> 
> What did God think of the ten spies who brought an evil report?
> 
> Numbers 14:36-37
> 36 And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
> 37 Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the Lord.
> 
> Only Joshua and Caleb believed in their "Great Commission."
> 
> There’s more, but this post is too long already.
> 
> Check out my signature for my view of the future.
> 
> We have a Greater Commission and an all-powerful God.
> 
> Yes. The ratio is always about ten to two. I want to be of the two. How about you?
Click to expand...


There is an echo of the Great Commission and the Book of Acts in Joshua, too:


> There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.(Joshua 1:5)


----------



## Ed Walsh

Peairtach said:


> By amil/postmil, I mean



I guess I am an optimistic amil then since I tend to believe we are in the millennium now.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Vox Oculi said:


> In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with *actual experience*.



1Cor.7:29-31 "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: *for the fashion of this world passeth away*."​
What does "actual experience" in the first quote mean? There is, indeed, an apparent (in the sense of "seemingly") contrast between a Jesus who has--right now--"all authority in heaven and on earth;" and the flesh-borne lives of his earth-bound saints. But the Bible tells us that this condition should not alarm us:

Rom.8:36-37 "As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us."​
Could there be a more obvious acknowledgment of this "difficulty" in the pages of Scripture? The apostle tells us that the one thing is what we "see," the other is the REALITY, the _*actual experience.*_

Another way of looking at the matter is to consider Heb.11, all the way down to the end of the ch. Does this describe only the times of old, or all times; and the examples are given to support the faith of saints throughout the NT age?



In fact, what we end up with in eschatology disputes is that one side believes that there is _definitive movement_ of humanity-as-a-whole toward positive/permanent results IN HISTORY, that is, prior to the END of this age and the final separation of all ungodliness from the presence of God, and the final state of New Earth and Heavens. There may be setbacks, e.g. an ascendant anti-Christ, etc.; but all that is prelude to victory in history.

And the other side believes that there is nothing but mixture of wheat and tares, societal downs and ups--perhaps even until the very end; and most likely the _definite movement_ of humanity-as-a-whole toward negative results, making sin's rebellious results too plain, exposing the awful chasm between righteousness and wickedness IN HISTORY through the end, which ushers in the permanent solution. That moment comes outside of history.

All "millennial-focused" eschatology is preoccupied with history, with this present time. Whether it is premil (historic or disp.), or postmil, the consistent aspect is the view that the Bible's promises of victory over sin, death, and the devil--personal and corporate--have _at least some_ TANGIBLE realization in history, prior to the final consummation and Last Judgment. This goes further than an understanding that salt and light have necessary (providential) temporal effects in history.

There are many points of disagreement between all three of these millennial positions, that's not the point. What should be indubitable is that their common view is that, "that which is unseen [and]... eternal," shall have some tangible, sensible, perhaps even universal expressions _prior to_ the end of time; that this is a requirement of prophetic fulfillment.

The amillennial position is often lumped with the premils by the postmils ("pessimillennialism"), more often with the postmils by amils themselves (since neither is fixated on an exact span of years). People often associate "other views" together, over against their "unique middle-ground." What my aim is here is to gain admission from both postmil and premils that the radical divide they have with the amils is over the purpose of history itself.

Is history a display of redemption, or are there other essential purposes for THIS creation? Must, for example, there be a pre-consummation redemption of creation itself, whether _by Christ_ or _by the redeemed,_ (rebuilding of an earthly "Jerusalem" or "Eden")? The amil position most clearly of the four main positions says No. Each of the others either says Yes unqualified (golden-age postmil), or qualified (repairs of the fallen world cannot be finalized in this life, but only degrees of fix).


----------



## Peairtach

Ed Walsh said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> By amil/postmil, I mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am an optimistic amil then since I tend to believe we are in the millennium now.
Click to expand...


So do I, but I tend to call myself a postmil if asked.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach

It's true, Bruce, that some postmils can be OTT. Even if everyone in the world was converted everone of them would sin daily. 

It's true that the Millennium was realised in principle in the first century. But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that, and it's true that the Church has made progress over the last 2,000 years but that the whole world has been only partially leavened.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Vox Oculi

Contra_Mundum said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with *actual experience*.
> 
> 
> 
> What does "actual experience" in the first quote mean?
Click to expand...


That I have watched National Geographic videos of animals eating other animals. That Steve Irwin died of a poison sting from an animal. That my own pets gobbled up some misfortunately located baby birds in front of my eyes, and that by this I know that we are not in the Millennium, because predation is still ruling in the animal kingdom.

That I have known very few people over the age of 100 and very many to die long before reaching that age. And by this, I know we are not in the Millennium.


----------



## MW

Peairtach said:


> But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that



I see Christ reigning, judging, and triumphing in the very administration of the gospel itself, according to the terms of Ps. 110.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Christ reigning, judging, and triumphing in the very administration of the gospel itself, according to the terms of Ps. 110.
Click to expand...


Ps 110 says this:

"The Lord is at Your right hand;
He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall execute the heads of many countries."

Where did this occur? And don't say all of history, unless you want me to believe that amil has "the day of wrath" and "the millennium" as simultaneously occurring.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> And don't say all of history, unless you want me to believe that amil has "the day of wrath" and "the millennium" as simultaneously occurring.[/SIZE][/FONT]



The truth is, that is what Scripture teaches, whether you like to hear it said or not. There is a judgment taking place in the gospel administration which shall be made visible on the great day of judgment.


----------



## Vox Oculi

MW said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't say all of history, unless you want me to believe that amil has "the day of wrath" and "the millennium" as simultaneously occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is, that is what Scripture teaches, whether you like to hear it said or not. There is a judgment taking place in the gospel administration which shall be made visible on the great day of judgment.
Click to expand...


This seems like bad hermeneutic. The NT consistently places "the great day of wrath" as a future event, never a present continuing administration. Glorification and eternity are also described as future events...but do you say that we are now living in sinless, perfect, immortal bodies?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> This seems like bad hermeneutic. The NT consistently places "the great day of wrath" as a future event, never a present continuing administration. Glorification and eternity are also described as future events...but do you say that we are now living in sinless, perfect, immortal bodies?[/SIZE][/FONT]



Perhaps this is a point on which the confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh requires some consideration. The New Testament explains this Psalm in terms of Christ's exaltation to the right hand of God and present administration. What happens at the end of the administration is the revelation of something which is present but we do not yet see.


----------



## Vox Oculi

It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?


----------



## Rich Koster

I'll take the label Acts 1:11er. He's coming back, stop arguing, and do what He said.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?



Inaugurated eschatology.


----------



## Peairtach

MW said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Christ reigning, judging, and triumphing in the very administration of the gospel itself, according to the terms of Ps. 110.
Click to expand...


This is true. But also, in a number of passages e.g. Daniel 2 there appears also to be a general direction from e.g. small to big, and relatively weak to strong - the Mustard Seed - in the progress of Christ's kingdom, and this is generally borne out by history, but with steps forward and big steps back.

The last verse of Ps 110 indicates that plentiful effusions of the Spirit at appropriate points in history will revive the Church at points in the age long battle when she would appear to be at the point of fainting.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach

Vox Oculi said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with *actual experience*.
> 
> 
> 
> What does "actual experience" in the first quote mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I have watched National Geographic videos of animals eating other animals. That Steve Irwin died of a poison sting from an animal. That my own pets gobbled up some misfortunately located baby birds in front of my eyes, and that by this I know that we are not in the Millennium, because predation is still ruling in the animal kingdom.
> 
> That I have known very few people over the age of 100 and very many to die long before reaching that age. And by this, I know we are not in the Millennium.
Click to expand...


You seem to be following a rather literalist hermeneutic regarding the prophets, so it's no wonder you think these things are wholly future. But the prophets speak of "the last days", and the New Testament indicates "the last days" to be the period from Christ's first advent to His second advent - also the end of the world. So the things that the prophets speak about are wholly here or are at least inaugurated.

Also to be taken into account is the fact that if what some of the prophets say is interpreted literally it makes God's Word to talk nonsense and/or inauguates another age of miracles long after the Canon has been closed. E.g. Isaiah 2:2 would speak of Mount Moriah being made higher than Mount Everest. Until we see that we can be assured we're not in the last days.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach

Vox Oculi said:


> It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?



The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven in history, as the Apostle says in Romans 1:18. It is revealed in the outworking of the Curse (Genesis 3). Death is a judgment on the unsaved and they are continually being individually judged by death and going to Hell. 

Meanwhile these are just small tokens of the final great day of judgment where God's justice will fully be explained, understood, accepted and acknowledged and revealed. The unsaved will freely acknowledge that He's a fair and just God, after all.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## oeco

Pan-millennial. I'm confident it'll all pan out in the end. [emoji6]

I'm amillennial myself. There's a great video on YouTube that is highly recommend, called "An Evening of Eschatology". Piper, Wilson, Storms and Hamilton all hammer out biblical amil/premil/postmil for 2 hours. Excellent. http://youtu.be/ws0vbT4Yu2s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed Walsh

*B.B. Warfield - Are There Few that Be Saved*

ARE THEY FEW THAT BE SAVED?
BY: Benjamin B. Warfield, d. d., ll. d., litt. d.
Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary

In this short article Warfield discusses the 3 (or 4) negative passages in the New Testament that have become dogma in much of the Church. They are: Mat. 7:14f; Luke 13:23f; Mat. 20:16; 22:14

There is a PFD document. Are There Few Saved.pdf
http://goo.gl/m7o8zY

And a docx document. Are There Few Saved.docx
http://goo.gl/iXVHRs


----------



## jprince

Voddie Baucham has a good series on the book of Revelation. It really opened my eyes to how much I misunderstood about revelation from growing up in a dispensational household. Here's the link: https://www.monergism.com/exposition-book-revelation-mp3-series-voddie-baucham


----------



## Leslie

Premil, believe in a mid-trib or post-trib rapture, but hope I'm wrong on the rapture bit.


----------



## Vox Oculi

Peairtach said:


> Vox Oculi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven in history, as the Apostle says in Romans 1:18. It is revealed in the outworking of the Curse (Genesis 3). Death is a judgment on the unsaved and they are continually being individually judged by death and going to Hell.
> 
> Meanwhile these are just small tokens of the final great day of judgment where God's justice will fully be explained, understood, accepted and acknowledged and revealed. The unsaved will freely acknowledge that He's a fair and just God, after all.
Click to expand...


And my point is that the best interpretation of the 'great day of God's wrath' is to specify the 'final great day of judgment' that you indicate. I don't have an issue with the fact that God's wrath is generally displayed. But the verses talking about "the great day of His wrath" are not talking about His general wrath but a specific instance of it. The issue wasn't that someone had said God's wrath is displayed during this time which is considered to be the millennium by amils--the issue was that the very thing which you yourself describe as future--'the final great day of judgment...after all'--was alleged to be simultaneous with the millennium. And this is clearly a contradiction, since -- you recognize yourself that you expect to see this sign -- unbelievers have not all bowed their knees to Him.


----------



## Vox Oculi

2 other observations, which I'll keep short since they could be debate threads in themselves:

1. I'm not _literalistic_ in my hermeneutic, but take more passages literally than amils obviously do. I am well aware that the Bible is full of symbolism, and the Isa 2 verses are easily recognizable as not talking about height but importance when it refers to being 'exalted over the mountains/hills' -- further, hills and mountains are recognizable as earthly kingdoms, since Daniel and Revelation explicitly interpret themselves in this regard by telling us that mountains are kingdoms. Summary: I believe my hermeneutic is historical-grammatical and a natural reading of the text, and I apply the principle of taking the literal sense of a word as the most natural except when there is good reason to take it another way -- such as when the Lord is called a 'shield'.

2. It seems that the motive for taking Psalms to be talking about the Church is rooted in a rigid Covenant Theology which takes all the promises to Israel and redirects them to the Church. Seeing it this way would certainly result in nonsense interpretations if a historical-grammatical hermeneutic is followed with the prophetic passages of Scripture. Ultimately the conflict there could only be resolved by questioning the motives for adopting replacement theology versus a New Covenant-"Dispensational" approach to interpretation. And that would go beyond the scope of this thread


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Rev Winzer speaks from a sector of Amillennialism called "consistent idealism", which differs from the eclectic or modified idealism of most contemporary amils. These latter assert there are historical referents spoken of in the Book of Revelation, while the "consistent" view denies it. This is an older thread on this topic: Revelation: inspirational drama of poetic symbols, or multi-genre prophecy?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

What is different about Christ on the throne now than before His incarnation is that He now has a human nature—one of us humans is the Lord of glory!—and we are brought into the throne to reign with Him (Rev 3:21). 

In your post 33 you’re likely talking about Isaiah 65:17-25, indeed a difficult passage, as the prophet uses the best imagery he can—from what he knows—to convey life in the “new heavens and a new earth” announced in verse 17, identical to the eternal state spoken of in Rev 21:1 and 2 Pet 3:13.

The Lord on the throne in heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22) is presently ruling not only the nations, and His beloved church from there, but the entire universe, which is upheld by the word of His power (Heb 1:3). All things are in subjection to Him, and under His feet, although “now we see not yet all things put under him” (Heb 2:8). He is working out His plan in the earth, purifying His church in the furnace of affliction as He prepares to gather the adversarial nations for “the battle of that great day of God Almighty . . . into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon” (Rev 16:14, 16). 

In Rev 20:7-9, we see this battle from another “camera angle”, under the symbolism of Gog and Magog going “up on the breadth of the earth” (Rev 20:9) to globally compass the camp of the saints, that is, the churches across the world. The symbolism is from Ezekiel 38 & 9 (shown also in Rev 19:11ff), a prophecy that had never been fulfilled previously.

Satan is “the god of this world” in that he rules in the hearts of most of humankind (Eph 2:2), but the devil is on a short leash and only allowed to do what God deigns according to His holy purpose.

The Book of Revelation was written so that the saints would have the vision and fidelity and courage to stay true to their God and Saviour even “when all around their souls gives way” with darkness and sin abounding, where the godless triumph, all virtue confounding. I like this saying of Tim Keller (though I don’t like everything he says), “Life-giving faith grows pure, and strong, and beautiful where gold grows pure, and strong, and beautiful – in the furnace.”

Daniel also was given vision to see the advent of Antiochus Epiphanes and his ravaging of Israel (God’s judgment for their sins), letting those who studied his prophesies to see this disaster coming, and spiritually be prepared to suffer. A similar thing will come our way.

I’m not sure what you refer to when you say, “a rejection of the tendency in Dispensational settings to make much too big a deal of America as a special nation in prophecy”. Would you elaborate, please?

Is not the “mountain” in Isaiah 2 the exalted state of the Kingdom of God—the church of Jesus Christ—to which all nations flow, now in this age? 

By the way, if you would posit a literal millennial age you go against the Scripture, for its testimony is that there are only two ages (Greek _aiōn_), this present age (or world in the AV), and the world to come, the eternal state:
Matt 12:32 whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [age], neither in the world [age] to come.

Luke 20:34, 35 The children of this world [age] marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world [age], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.

​This third age you think to have us accept is refuted by the Lord; there is this age, and the age to come. Not two ages, and a third to come.

You think to claim the historical-grammatical hermeneutic solely for yourself and your mostly literal interpretive approach? Well, I claim it also, as do the Reformed generally, as simply sound interpretive strategy. Where we differ from you is that we take into account the various _genres_ used in Scripture. Both Daniel and Revelation—for the most part—are of the genres apocalyptic and vision, with Revelation epistolary as well (and Daniel including historical narrative). Apocalyptic and vision genres *both* convey their messages by symbolic imagery. 

Then you talk about “rigid Covenant Theology”! Young person (I do not know if you are a young man or a young woman as you travel—even among brethren—incognito!), sound Covenant Theology is far from “rigid”, but rather a beautiful, divine, organic construct of God’s plan for saving humanity from destruction and for His glory, whereby we shall joy and praise in His presence untold ages.

And then you talk about so-called “replacement theology”. As though you know whereof you really spoke. In the post below I’ll show a brief paper, “ISRAEL HAS _NOT_ BEEN REPLACED BY THE CHURCH”.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

*Israel has not been replaced by the church*

.

*Israel has not been replaced by the church*
_Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; And the people _
_whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance._ Psalm 33:12​ 
When Christ – the Messiah of Israel – came among His people, taught them and died for them, He came as the King anciently prophesied. Of Him Isaiah said, “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, *to order it*, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever” (9:7). Daniel saw in vision, “there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (7:14). Messiah, on the throne of David, shall rule a kingdom comprised of many nations.

When the angel Gabriel foretold His birth to Mary His mother, he said, “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father, David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1:32, 33)

We see here Messiah coming into the world to establish and order his kingdom; it is called by the angel “the house of Jacob”, and in this kingdom will be many nations, peoples, and languages; Micah said of Messiah, that He is “to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (5:2). We also see that Messiah, Jesus the Christ, extends the boundaries of His kingdom – the kingdom of Israel – to include all the earth, and this is fitting, for “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all they that dwell therein.... For God is the king of all the earth.... [He] reigns over the heathen” (Ps 24:1; 47:7, 8). There is no doubt that this long-awaited kingdom – of which Daniel said the God of heaven would set it up and it would never be destroyed but rather would do away with all rival kingdoms (2:44) – this very kingdom was Israel; its king, Jesus of Nazareth, seed of the royal line of David; its capital, New Jerusalem: “And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their honour and glory into it” (Rev 21:24).

But many in ancient Israel would not hear Him, rather _hated_ Him. Of such, God speaking through Moses declared, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:19), meaning, God would require his place in Israel and his life! The apostle Peter reiterated these words of Moses as follows, “every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23).

In other words, the Lord – _the King!_ – at this time *ordered* His kingdom by separating wheat from chaff, sheep from goats, and executed what He had earlier told the chief priests and elders of the people: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt 21:43). The kingdom of God given to a nation _other_ than Israel? *No*, rather the nation of Israel so ordered anew by its king as to remove its ties to the temple and its priesthood, and to the government – both of which were conspiring to slay Him! – and transfer it to a new government of His choosing, with twelve apostles instead of twelve tribal elders, and comprised of all true Israelites who would bow the knee to their King and God. The others – *all the others* – who refused to heed the word of the God of Israel through Messiah, were removed from the nation of Israel, as a butcher cleaves inedible gristle from the meat. Israel was now comprised of only those loyal to God’s Messiah. His body was now the true temple, His word the law, and His apostles the appointed rulers of the people. The land of Israel would be extended to include the entire earth, no more restricted by the geography of Palestine; the true Jerusalem would be the heavenly, the one from above, to be brought to the earth in the fullness of time.

What was the status of those Jews cut off from the people of Israel? Unabashedly modern Judaism states,
“...it was the tannaitic [Pharisaic-Rabbinic teaching] tradition which was almost completely representative of the Jewish community in Palestine and, to a great extent, of that segment of the Diaspora which remained loyal to its ancestral faith.... Indeed, it is the _halakhah_ [the Jewish legal system founded by the Tannaim] which may be described as that which typifies Rabbinic Judaism.” [1]​ 
In other words, those Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and were cut off by God from the nation – no more accepted as Israelites by the God of Israel, and by its messianic King – these renegades became rivals for the name and status of _Israel_ and _Jew_. Though physical seed of Abraham, they were disowned by Jehovah. They murderously persecuted the true Israel when it was in their power.

What says Messiah of these? When giving John the letter for the church in Smyrna, Jesus says, “...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (2:9). When the Greek word _blasph__ē__mia_ is used regarding humans it means reviling slander, and these Jews slanderously accused this small company of Messiah’s followers to the Roman authorities, causing their imprisonment and execution. Again, in the letter to the church in Philadelphia Jesus has John write, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship [bow down in humility] before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee” (3:9). This indicates that some of the church’s fiercest enemies were converted and won to their Messiah. But it also indicates that the King of Israel declared those Jews which were against Him (“He that is not with me is against me” Matt 12:30) were, in His eyes, not any longer Jews, but apostates.

The apostle Paul, by the Spirit of God, says the same:
“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom 2:28, 29)​ 
Jeremiah concurs, for even in the Old Covenant uncircumcision of heart incurred God’s wrath, as it indicated wickedness and rebellion (Jer 9:25, 26). And again Paul says, “For they are not all Israel which are of Israel... but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8), and “...if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).

And yet again, in his letter to the church in Philippi, Paul says, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Jesus Christ, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (3:3) To the Galatian churches he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (6:15)

Little wonder many in what is called Modern Jewry loathe Christ, the New Testament, Christians, and *God* for this pronouncement, even though it first came by Moses (Deut 18:15, 18, 19).

Paul says that in times past Gentile nations were looked upon as “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world…”, but now, in the fold of Messiah, they “are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph 2:12, 19). This household of God is the same spoken of in Hebrews, Moses being a faithful servant in it – the house of Israel – while Christ is no servant but the “son over his own house; whose house we are” (3:1-6).

The Israel of God has not been replaced, but it has been culled, the faithful Jews gathered and the unfaithful cast off by word of the King; the promise to Abraham that “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3) is now being fulfilled, as is the prophecy of Daniel that “all people, nations, and languages should serve him” (7:14). Sometimes the kingdom of Israel is called the church, but this latter is a synonym, and no replacement! Only in _this_ kingdom is _this_ Scripture fulfilled: “In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory” (Isa 45:25), for justification before His presence is the gift of God through faith in Messiah; in true Israel alone are *all the seed* so blessed. The New Jerusalem which shall come down upon the renewed earth is its capital, and the glory of Israel is the Lamb who sits upon the throne of David, the divine Husband of that beloved Bride who shares His glory.
___________

[1] _Who Was A Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism_, by Lawrence H. Schiffman (KATV Publishing House, NJ 1985), Pages 4, 5.


----------



## senjui19

I m amil


----------



## johnny

Thank you Steve,,
Your posts are a great souce of blessing to me.


----------



## MW

Vox Oculi said:


> And my point is that the best interpretation of the 'great day of God's wrath' is to specify the 'final great day of judgment' that you indicate.



What happens to finally impenitent wicked men at their death? Do they suffer the wrath of God or not?


----------



## richardnz

In response to the OP, is going to be difficult to distinguish between postmillennialism and amillennialism. See Kim Riddlebarger, “Princeton and the Millennium, a Study of American Postmillennialism”.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/princetonmill.html


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Richard (welcome to PB),

Actually, it is the _nature_ of the "millennium" that makes it easy to distinguish between the two. In the Postmil the world gets better, and in the Amil it gets worse.


----------



## ZackF

Amil but who knows where I'll be a year from now. I find the matter frustrating and very similar to the origins and age of the earth issues in my experience.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Zack, why don't you read, _Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation_, by Dennis E. Johnson? This is one of the best modern amil treatments of it in an accessible style. If one doesn't have a depth comprehension of the Biblical data one will be adrift on the matter.


----------



## RamistThomist

Is there a version of amillennialism that also allows for a climactic showdown between Antichrist/Beast/Whatever and the faithful? I am willing to do business with that version.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ReformedReidian said:


> Is there a version of amillennialism that also allows for a climactic showdown between Antichrist/Beast/Whatever and the faithful? I am willing to do business with that version.



I would have thought that the Protestant Reformed Churches adhered to that form of amillennialism, but I cannot say for sure. Steve or some of the PRC brethren can set me straight on that one if I am mistaken.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a version of amillennialism that also allows for a climactic showdown between Antichrist/Beast/Whatever and the faithful? I am willing to do business with that version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have thought that the Protestant Reformed Churches adhered to that form of amillennialism, but I cannot say for sure. Steve or some of the PRC brethren can set me straight on that one if I am mistaken.
Click to expand...


Some clarifications. My eschatology (whether millennial or such) is fueled by a number of factors, not least of which the Church Fathers, and Eastern ones at that. So I see a coming showdown with Antichrist (Cyril of Jerusalem said we would fight him in our person) AND a renewal of the cosmos.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ReformedReidian said:


> So I see a coming showdown with Antichrist (Cyril of Jerusalem said we would fight him in our person)



It looks like you want to be in the front seat when this showdown takes place.


----------



## Peairtach

ReformedReidian said:


> Is there a version of amillennialism that also allows for a climactic showdown between Antichrist/Beast/Whatever and the faithful? I am willing to do business with that version.



Traditional Reformation postmillennialism or very optimistic amillennialism - many (most?) modern postmils are amil in the sense that they believe the milllennium commenced in the first century - believes that the Antichrist (the Papacy) will not survive until the end of the world, that all nations and nation states will be converted from beastly, this worldly, ways, that the Jews will be converted as a nation, etc.

Christ will make a display of all forms of unbelief in history. It's a process in history, but 1,000 years is as one day to the Lord.


----------



## RamistThomist

Peairtach said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a version of amillennialism that also allows for a climactic showdown between Antichrist/Beast/Whatever and the faithful? I am willing to do business with that version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional Reformation postmillennialism or very optimistic amillennialism - many (most?) modern postmils are amil in the sense that they believe the milllennium commenced in the first century - believes that the Antichrist (the Papacy) will not survive until the end of the world, that all nations and nation states will be converted from beastly, this worldly, ways, that the Jews will be converted as a nation, etc.
> 
> Christ will make a display of all forms of unbelief in history. It's a process in history, but 1,000 years is as one day to the Lord.
Click to expand...


I am aware of what traditional postmil and amil believes, having been an adherent at times. 

As to the 1,000 years, you stated a simile, which is not the same thing as a literal fact. (That said, I am not committed either way on this point).


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I see a coming showdown with Antichrist (Cyril of Jerusalem said we would fight him in our person)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like you want to be in the front seat when this showdown takes place.
Click to expand...


On in a FEMA Camp. Bernie 2016!


----------



## Peairtach

> As to the 1,000 years, you stated a simile, which is not the same thing as a literal fact.



I just meant that the process of Christ's putting all His enemies under His feet (I Cor 15:25) may be a long time for us, but not for God. It's been almost 2,000 years already.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, you said, “Is there a version of amillennialism that also allows for a climactic showdown between Antichrist/Beast/Whatever and the faithful? I am willing to do business with that version.”

It seems like you’ve got the “Left Behind” drama in your blood. I tend to think _our_ (here in America) “climactic showdown between Antichrist/Beast/Whatever” will take the form of public witness of some sort. Richard Bauckham, in two of his books on Revelation said this,
John carefully takes up Jewish expectations of a messianic war in which God’s people are to fight and win a military victory over their enemies, *and reinterprets them, substituting faithful witness to the point of martyrdom for armed violence as the means of victory.*” [emphasis added] (Richard Bauckham, _The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation_, p. xv) 
___________

Thus what John foresees of history before the End itself is that there will be the great conflict, the life-and-death struggle between the beast and the church, in which God’s secret strategy for the followers of the Lamb to participate in the coming of God’s kingdom is to take effect. Of course, even *this is less a prediction than a call to the church to provoke and to win the conflict by persevering in faithful witness*. . . [emphasis added]

Throughout the period [of imperial Rome’s persecution] martyrdom played a major role in the success of the Christian Gospel. Of course, the historical evidence is not available to weigh it against other factors. But *it is clear that not only was martyrdom frequently the way in which the claims of the Christian God were brought to inescapable public attention, but also that the fact of the martyrs’ willingness to die and the way in which they died were seen to cohere with the nature of the religious message they believed.* Moreover, John's own prophecy played a role, as it was intended to do, in providing the church with the vision that made martyrdom possible and meaningful. [emphasis added] (Bauckham, _The Theology of the Book of Revelation_, pp. 150, 151)​


----------



## MW

The Revelation teaches us the "climactic showdown" has already taken place in Christ, and the climax of the conflict for which Satan hopes will never be realised.

Christ has the keys of hell and of death, not Satan. The desire for an end-times "showdown" misses the point of Revelation. Believers at their death enter into glory and reign with Christ. That is only possible because Christ reigns now and the eschatological judgment is manifested in the present for the salvation of the saints.

Dreams of a carnal kingdom effectively deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> Dreams of a carnal kingdom effectively deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.



Which is not my position. And even if I were premillennial, poisoning the well with terms like "carnal" isn't helpful.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It seems like you’ve got the “Left Behind” drama in your blood.



Or the Church Fathers


----------



## Presbuteros

*Amil... And I believe the wicked will be taken first.

Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. Mt. 24*


----------



## MW

ReformedReidian said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dreams of a carnal kingdom effectively deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my position. And even if I were premillennial, poisoning the well with terms like "carnal" isn't helpful.
Click to expand...


Anything which disagrees with your position is poisoning the well as far as you are concerned, which nullifies the possibility of raising counter-points to broaden the discussion beyond your view.


----------



## ZackF

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Zack, why don't you read, _Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation_, by Dennis E. Johnson? This is one of the best modern amil treatments of it in an accessible style. If one doesn't have a depth comprehension of the Biblical data one will be adrift on the matter.



Thank you. This book is going into my queue.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dreams of a carnal kingdom effectively deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my position. And even if I were premillennial, poisoning the well with terms like "carnal" isn't helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything which disagrees with your position is poisoning the well as far as you are concerned, which nullifies the possibility of raising counter-points to broaden the discussion beyond your view.
Click to expand...


You used the word "Carnal." It has negative connotations. I mean, if the only options were your position and a "carnal" millennium, well who would choose carnal? I could have called all the alternatives to my position "gnostic" or "Manichean," but I didn't.


----------



## VanGillMan

I am Post-mil.

Pre-mil cannot be correct because I see Christ's return to be once at the very the end of history.

A-mil cannot be correct because the position (as I understand it) holds that Satan's binding was accomplished at the cross. However, at the very end Satan is unbound, which would be as though what Christ accomplished at the cross is undone - I don't think that is possible.

My view is that the work of the Spirit throughout this age will continue to grow Christ's kingdom, until Satan is bound for 1000 years. At the end of that time he will be released for a little season, and quickly defeated for all time.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Welcome to PB, Andrew!

How would _you_ then understand the binding and loosing of Satan?


----------



## tantely

Vox Oculi said:


> Where does the community of PuritanBoard stand with regard to their eschatology?
> 
> Amil, Premil, Postmil? Preterite, Partial Preterite, Historical Premillennialism? Pre, post, mid-trib or pre-wrath Rapture? Literal Millennium or not?
> 
> Also, out of curiosity, since people seem to divide the following ways: Covenant Theology with Amillennialism, and Dispensationalism with Premillennialism, I'm curious if anyone comes down another way.
> 
> Short question to answer in the comments: what are you actually expecting in terms of what the next 20-80 years in the future will bring?
> 
> Useful reading regardless of one's view:
> 
> _Why Study Eschatology?_
> 
> 
> 
> *Reason Three: God Put It In The Bible*
> 
> Again, I don’t mean to sound like a wise guy here, but hopefully the strength of this point is its obviousness. If the Holy Spirit saw fit to fill the pages of the Bible with abundant (and I do mean abundant) references to the last-days, then why do the vast majority of Christians pass over these portions of Scripture? Why do so many Christians tend to be a bit cynical or dismissive when it comes to, for instance, the Book of Revelation? While God never says explicitly, “thou shall study eschatology”, He may as well have said it by simple virtue of the fact that He gave it such a place of prominence in the Bible. We must ask ourselves, “If God doesn’t want me to study and understand this stuff, then what is it there for?” Think about this fact: Over twenty-five percent of the verses in the Bible contain predictive/prophetic content 2 If we disregard that twenty-five percent (along with of course, those infamous and pesky genealogies) then we can significantly whittle the Bible down quite a bit. But before we do that, I suppose we’ll have to first toss out that verse that says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Sorry, I guess I was trying to be a wise guy after all… My apologies.
Click to expand...

Historical postmill

; )


----------



## MW

ReformedReidian said:


> I could have called all the alternatives to my position "gnostic" or "Manichean," but I didn't.



Is it "gnostic" to believe that the souls of believers immediately enter into glory at their death? Of course not. So although you could have called it gnostic, you would have had no grounds for doing so. "Carnal," however, refers to this world, and chiliasts teach that the reign with Christ shall be in this world, so it is an appropriate description.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could have called all the alternatives to my position "gnostic" or "Manichean," but I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it "gnostic" to believe that the souls of believers immediately enter into glory at their death? Of course not. So although you could have called it gnostic, you would have had no grounds for doing so. "Carnal," however, refers to this world, and chiliasts teach that the reign with Christ shall be in this world, so it is an appropriate description.
Click to expand...


I believe that souls of believers enter into glory at death. In fact, I argued strenuously for that position on one PB thread some months ago and I got a lot of people nervous. But that can't be your final answer, because we also believe in the Resurrection--which means we won't remain disembodied souls forever. So, would you agree with Hoekema and other that our resurrected bodies will return to a renewed earth? Or will we float in the aether?

"Carnal" is too reductionist. How is it modifying the word "world"? Is it modifying God's good creation? Is that how world is being used? If so, then what God called "good" we call "carnal." 

Unless there is another sense in play.


----------



## MW

ReformedReidian said:


> I believe that souls of believers enter into glory at death.



If you believe it in the eschatological sense taught by the Revelation you will have no basis for a "this-worldly" (carnal) millennium. You will be bound to acknowledge that the souls of believers are reigning with Christ throughout the present era because the devil has been cast out of the court room of heaven and has no administrative power of death over the woman or her seed.

"New heavens and new earth" is administrative and is already with us in the inaugurated sense that there is a new creation in Christ. But the consummation of this new creation takes place at the resurrection with the second coming of Christ, which entails a general and final judgment immediately after the resurrection. Again, it leaves no place for a this-worldly millennium.


----------



## VanGillMan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Welcome to PB, Andrew!
> 
> How would _you_ then understand the binding and loosing of Satan?



Hi Steve, 

Thanks for the welcome. I will preface this by saying that of course I could be wrong  - BUT, I see the binding of Satan as coming through the work of the spirit in the growing of Christ's kingdom until the leaven has worked it's way through the whole loaf. The second petition has been answered in full effect i.e. - _"the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate..." (WLC Q191)_

The loosing - how do you go from that to being loosed? Hard to say I admit - if asked I would respond 'well, how did Satan fall' - hard to understand, but suffice to say God will allow it in order to further display his glory and goodness in Satan's full and overwhelming destruction.

I see the millennium as the justification in history of the cause for which the martyrs died - from the thrones where they reign with Christ they look on the downfall of the wicked and see the vindication of the cause for which they have suffered.

God Bless!


----------



## Peairtach

The short period of apostasy after a long period of blessedness may be to confirm the incorrigibility of Satan and his angelic and human minions before the end.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

Peairtach said:


> The short period of apostasy after a long period of blessedness may be to confirm the incorrigibility of Satan and his angelic and human minions before the end.



That is one of the weaknesses of this-worldly millennial thinking. It effectively introduces a "new dispensation" and then there is an unique "apostacy" from it. The idea of a new order of things at a later stage, or an even later fall from that order, basically undoes the kingdom and patience of the saints in a suffering and dying condition under the present world order.


----------



## Peairtach

Well it's true that there have been a number of major apostasies already e.g. the Papal apostasy (Ii Thessalonians), and the Modern (Enlightenment) apostasy, both of which are still playing out, along with lots of other "smaller" ones.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Cymro

We are now passing through the great tribulation; we are now passing through the millennium; and what do we need a new heavens and earth for? My reading of the thematic strand through Isaiah, Peter and Revelation, is the teaching of a new order being introduced. From the flood when the the heavens and the earth did not perish only the inhabitants, to the constitution of Israel as a church/state at Mount Sinai, to the overthrow of their enemies, to the removal of the old Jewish economy by the gospel and then the final glory of the heavenly state, they all signify a change of order and administration. I am genuinely puzzled as to what the supposed new earth is for! Heaven will be our home wherein dwelleth righteousness, in the mansions prepared for us. The final state and order.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Jeff,

I also used to think of Heaven as the final destination for the saints, but then I came across the teaching that it is but the "intermediate state" where we abide with the Lord and the spirits of just men and women made perfect (Heb 12:22-24) until the resurrection, where we are reconnected with our physical bodies which are now "glorified". Peter talks about it like this:
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Peter 3:12, 13)​
And Revelation says this of it:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Rev 21:1-5)​
So I understand the Biblical teaching to be this: Our God and Saviour shall cleanse and purify this earth with fire, and shall then renew it according to the pristine glory it was meant to have, and thus a fit place for us to dwell in with our glorified bodies. Also, we see the heavenly Jerusalem coming down to now be upon the earth, but even greater than that, our Lord and God will dwell with us upon this glorious paradise earth, the joy and crown of the saints' eternal home.

Anthony Hoekema wrote a little about it, Heaven: Not Just an Eternal Day Off, adapted from his book, _The Bible and the Future_. Always something new to learn about—the things God has prepared for those who love Him!


----------



## Ed Walsh

Jerusalem Blade said:


> "I also used to think of Heaven as the final destination for the saints, but then I came across the teaching that it is but the "intermediate state" where we abide with the Lord and the spirits of just men and women made perfect (Heb 12:22-24) until the resurrection, where we are reconnected with our physical bodies which are now "glorified". Peter talks about it like this:" etc.



Your thoughts are exactly the same as mine on this glorious subject.
I think the, “no more sea” part may be literal. The extra two-thirds of space being needed to accommodate the large number of saints.

Thanks.


----------



## Nathan

Ed Walsh said:


> I think the, “no more sea” part may be literal. The extra two-thirds of space being needed to accommodate the large number of saints.



Ed, that's an idea I'd never considered, but it makes sense, especially in light of the scene we find in Revelation 7.

[BIBLE]Revelation 7:9-10[/BIBLE]

I've often wondered if perhaps the removal of the sea (*thalassa*, θάλασσα) in Revelation 21:1 corresponds at all to the sea (*thalassa*, θάλασσα) that is in view in Revelation 4:6 (the _sea of glass_ before the throne of God). Perhaps this sea serves as a barrier of some kind, separating heaven and earth, and at the consummation, with the ushering in of the new heaven and the new earth, this separation no longer has any need to continue.

May the Lord keep you,

-Nathan


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Explore the prophetic contrast between the sea (v1) and the city (v2).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Some commentators think of the sea (i.e., no more of it) in Rev 21:1 as the sea in Rev 13:1 and other places in the OT—which is symbolic of the place and source of chaos and evil. While I know that to be true, I also consider the possibility there will be no more sea in the sense that the land masses (continents) are no longer separated by vast bodies of water, so that humanity has easy access to its various glorified other sectors. So we still have large bodies of water, but not as they were.


----------



## MW

I don't think heaven, earth, and sea in Revelation should be understood as referring merely to physical entities, but have strong eschatological concepts attached to them which require careful analysis.

Chapters 4 and 5 are the two mirrors of the telescope through which the visions of Revelation are viewed and things afar off are seen to be near. In chap. 4 we have God's absolute dominion; in chap. 5 the mediatorial dominion of the Lamb. They begin with the viewpoint of the Psalms that the heaven is God's but He has given earth to the sons of men. The visions are concluded (chaps. 21, 22) by looking through the same two mirrors, only new Jerusalem comes out of heaven from God and the united throne of God and the lamb rules over and blesses all creation. In this vision all things have been reconciled and therefore there is no more sea.

Heaven and earth are being used in an "administrative" sense, and refer to the present order of things until the consummation when there will be a new administration symbolised in the new heaven and the new earth. In one sense the new creation is already at work in the redemption of men, but in another sense it will not be visible until the coming of Christ and final judgment.

From the viewpoint of earth our hope is in heaven, and cannot be in earth. In the two age scheme of New Testament eschatology we are led to see earth as corrupt and heaven as the place to which our affections should rise (Col. 3). The idea of living for ever on a renewed earth may turn out to be a reality in a reconciled and united heaven and earth, but we do not have any basis for this hope in biblical eschatology, and there is no reason to take the apocalyptic symbols geographically at this point.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

"The idea of living for ever on a renewed earth may turn out to be a reality in a reconciled and united heaven and earth, but we do not have any basis for this hope in biblical eschatology, and there is no reason to take the apocalyptic symbols geographically at this point." MW​
Well, this may be consistent with a "Consistent Idealism"-style hermeneutic, but I think Isaiah 65:17 and following refer to a real new heavens and new earth:
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.​
As does 2 Peter 3:13: "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."

So when John sees in vision the following, we indeed have this glorious hope to look forward to, that being,
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​
What we see here is heavenly Jerusalem coming down from heaven to its new location upon the earth, where the dwelling—the tabernacle—of God will actually be among us, and His throne be on this planet. We shall actually see and fellowship with our Saviour, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9), on our streets and in our homes.

Neither will there be a temple, "for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev 21:22), and as we are one with Him in His mystical body, we as well are the temple He dwells in. Of this New Jerusalem were are told, "The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal" (Rev 21:16), making it, in this symbolic image, a perfect cube of extraordinary dimensions. Is there any other perfect cube to be found in Scripture? Yes, in 1 Kings 6:16, 20 we see that the holy of holies is such a cube.

What this is telling us is that New Jerusalem on New Earth is itself the holy of holies—and what is New Jerusalem but, not only the city of God, but the bride herself (see Rev 21:2). The community of glorified saints _is_ New Jerusalem, yet it is also the city proper, wherein is the River of Life "proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rev 22:1), along the sides of which are the trees of life and their wondrous fruit and leaves. Are these things symbols of glorious realities? Yes, though I believe they are at the same time actual fruits and trees with marvellous properties.

We, the blood-bought and redeemed of Jesus Christ, will have—as our Saviour does also—real physical bodies, albeit glorified, and He has given us a glimpse of the real physical _yet also glorified_ earth He is preparing for us to dwell upon as our new home. The very heart and soul, so to speak, of this global New Jerusalem will be the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb—in all Their wondrousness (words fail to convey)—in the midst of us. And herein will be utterly fulfilled the sayings, "I will be their God, and they will be My people", "And _ will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!_


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, this may be consistent with a "Consistent Idealism"-style hermeneutic



It is consistent with the type of biblical exegesis which is bound to rules of interpretation that stop men from trying to soar above themselves in flights of fancy and pry into things which God has not revealed.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

So those who do not believe the "consistent idealist" hermeneutic is key to Biblical understanding "soar above themselves in flights of fancy"? Methinks we've been around this bush before!

There are those who think God _has_ revealed such things as spoken of in Revelation 21 and 22 to His beloved, as Paul said here:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God (1 Cor 2:9, 10).​
I think this is among those things.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So those who do not believe the "consistent idealist" hermeneutic is key to Biblical understanding "soar above themselves in flights of fancy"? Methinks we've been around this bush before!



You raised "consistent idealism." I was referring back to my original post.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> There are those who think God _has_ revealed such things as spoken of in Revelation 21 and 22 to His beloved



And there are those who think Rev. 20 should be interpreted in the same fashion according to the same ideas and arrive at an earthly millennium after the coming of Christ.

The church universal believes in heaven. 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Peter 1:4. Leave it to the fundamentalist hippies to imagine there's no heaven, and leave it to hip theologians to cater to their vain imaginations.

Larger Catechism, question 90, "What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment? Answer: At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, *and shall be received into heaven*, where they shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. *And this is the perfect and full communion*, *which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory*, *at the resurrection and day of judgment*."


----------



## richardnz

Rev 21 speaks at length about the holy city, the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ, descending from heaven to earth. This is clearly the church. Eph 5:25-27, Is 54:5, and not a physical city.

The question naturally arises, “When does the descent take place?”. 
The clues are in the text and the cross-references.

When do people start streaming into the Holy City? Heb 12:22 “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,”

When do men say,”.. the tabernacle of God is with men and He shall dwell with them”? John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt [tabernacled] among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

When are the apostles as foundations of the city laid? Eph 2:20. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” see Rev 21:14

When is there a new creation? IICor5:17 “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

When do the saints start to reign as kings on the earth? (Rev 22:5) Rom 5:17 We reign in life, 
Eph 2:6”And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”,
Exodus 19:6,” And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” 
Rev 20:6 “.. they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years”.

So the descending of the New Jerusalem is clearly connected with the arrival of Christ and the beginning of the NT church, the beginning of the kingdom. The problem is that we do not yet see the end of tears, sorrow, death etc, Rev21:4. We do not see the full extent of Christ's kingdom. This leads many to conclude that the passage must be referring to events at the Second Coming. Somehow it seems to be referring to both the beginning and the end.The most sensible solution seems to be that the church age, the thousand years, is a process of renewal inaugurated by Christ which culminates in the final perfection. The New Jerusalem has descended, but in a sense it is not fully descended. We reign with Christ now, but not fully, so we pray for His kingdom to come in the awareness that it has already arrived. The kingdom must be extended. Rev 21 and 22 are showing us the whole church age in one snapshot.

I think that this is what MW means by “realised millennium”. This would make me an optimistic amillennialist also.

The literal removal of the sea would be an unusual intrusion into a passage where everything else is not literal. My best attempt at explaining the removal of the sea is this: Note Ps114,

“When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language;
Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion.
The sea saw it, and fled: Jordan was driven back.
The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.
What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back?
Ye mountains, that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills, like lambs?
Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob;”

The presence of the holy God causes all things of earth to flee from His presence. 

Note also that the preceding verses of Rev 20 are explaining the final judgment, an event the whole of creation trembles at. Rev 20:11 says that upon the arrival of the great white throne, that the earth and heaven flee at the sight of the face of God coming in judgment. In connection with this flight Rev 21:1 has stated that “the first heaven and first earth had passed away”. The bible often refers to the three parts of creation, the heavens, the earth, and the sea.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day
Ps 146:6 Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever

So the passage is saying that the first heaven has passed away, the first earth has passed away, and now it says the accompanying sea has passed away also, and their flight has made way for the new heavens, the new earth and, by implication, the new sea. I suspect that the reason for the fear of God and the necessary removal of the old order is due to the pollution of man's sin. So the passage is using the picture of a recreation of the physical world as a picture of the renewal of the spiritual.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

When was it first taught that the new heavens and new earth are meant to be taken as literal and physical?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This is one of the reasons that some Christians say Amillennialism is part of liberal theology—seeing that some of its proponents “spiritualize” the Book of Revelation to the point it is eviscerated! All symbols and no historical referents, or as some turn it, _all history_ is referred to, but nothing particular.

This sort of confusion is also why many shy from seriously studying the Apocalypse of John—so many contending views, and who can tell which is true?

Jeri, to answer your question, I’d say that at the least around 698 B.C.—the time of the prophet Isaiah—when he recorded the word of the LORD in his prophecy at Isa 65:17 ff., where the LORD says, “behold, I create new heavens and a new earth”, and speaks of building houses and planting vineyards, working with their hands (Isa 65:21, 22). Some say v 20 precludes it being the eternal state, but as Anthony Hoekema says, “Can one imagine a death not accompanied by weeping?” (The Bible and the Future, p 202), for Isa 65:19 says, "the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying." There will be no tears or sorrow on the new earth upon which Heaven has come down.

Our original ancestors, Adam and Eve, while still in the state of innocence—no death within them—were made for a physical world, and a paradisical garden. Looking forward to the paradise of New Earth, speaking of drinking wine, Jesus told His disciples,
I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom (Matt 26:29).​ 
Heaven in the intermediate state is not an earthly place, so the grapes and wine would have to be _on_ the earth. When John sees “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven” (Rev 21:2), it is coming down upon the earth, for in the next verse (Rev 21:3) God says He will now dwell with men. Jesus told His men that in His Father’s house are many mansions, and He is going to prepare a place for us in which to dwell (John 14:2). Where God is, there is Heaven. Heaven and earth are then to be one. So yes, we will dwell in Heaven, but that will be the new earth, where God now sits on His Throne (Rev 22:1). It is astonishing that we should be granted such glory and honor, to abide intimately with God Almighty.

I would say New Jerusalem is both city _and_ community. There will be a throne, dwellings, streets, a river, trees; we will eat and drink, build, sing, worship, labor. With our glorified physical bodies we are meant for an environment both physical and glorified.

I could go on about this, and will, but for now I have to get to bed early so as to rise early, for tomorrow my better half and I go to worship our King, our Saviour God!


----------



## TylerRay

MW said:


> From the viewpoint of earth our hope is in heaven, and cannot be in earth. In the two age scheme of New Testament eschatology we are led to see earth as corrupt and heaven as the place to which our affections should rise (Col. 3). *The idea of living for ever on a renewed earth may turn out to be a reality in a reconciled and united heaven and earth, but we do not have any basis for this hope in biblical eschatolog*y, and there is no reason to take the apocalyptic symbols geographically at this point.



Rev. Winzer,

I agree with you concerning consistent idealism, and that includes the last chapters of Revelation. How, though, would you interpret Paul's statement in Romans 8 about the whole creation groaning until it is delivered from corruption? He sets this up as parallel to our own groaning until the resurrection, and implies that its deliverance will be concurrent with ours.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello RichardNZ (welcome to PB!),

You said, “When do people start streaming into the Holy City? Heb 12:22 ‘But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels’ ”. Yes, but this is in spirit while we are in this present age—so it has indeed begun—as Isaiah 2:2,3 also shows.

But in the eternal age it will be realized on New Earth—upon which the heart of Heaven, New Jerusalem and the throne of God, has come down—and in our glorified bodies we will stream throughout that glorious world, as John shows us in Rev 21:22-26,
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.​ 
Physicality and bodies are part of God’s wonderful inheritance for us (the King Himself has a glorified human body), and we shall live wondrously and happily ever after.


----------



## MW

TylerRay said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the viewpoint of earth our hope is in heaven, and cannot be in earth. In the two age scheme of New Testament eschatology we are led to see earth as corrupt and heaven as the place to which our affections should rise (Col. 3). *The idea of living for ever on a renewed earth may turn out to be a reality in a reconciled and united heaven and earth, but we do not have any basis for this hope in biblical eschatolog*y, and there is no reason to take the apocalyptic symbols geographically at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> I agree with you concerning consistent idealism, and that includes the last chapters of Revelation. How, though, would you interpret Paul's statement in Romans 8 about the whole creation groaning until it is delivered from corruption? He sets this up as parallel to our own groaning until the resurrection, and implies that its deliverance will be concurrent with ours.
Click to expand...


On the parallel view, as taught by Calvin, the creature is nature seeking its own preservation and perfection, which is in accord with the analogy of faith. If we work with this interpretation nature itself will be renewed at the regeneration or restitution of all things. This would be equivalent to new heavens and new earth, and many commentators take it as referring to the same thing. Still, there is no mention of living on a new earth. The idea has no Scriptural basis. The very structure of NT eschatology contrasts the earthy with the heavenly and leads us to seek resurrection life in the heavenly man. The Lord from heaven ascended to heaven to prepare a place for us. From there He will come again to receive us to Himself that where He is there we may be also. We change our abode to be with Him, He does not change His abode to be with us.

The new earth habitation theory is based on the misreading of one Scripture.


----------



## MW

From Jonathan Edwards' Miscellaneous Observations:



> _Heaven_ — the eternal abode of the church. The house not made with hands is eternal in the heavens; but, if the saints' abode in heaven be temporary as well as their abode on earth, it would not be said so; their house there would be but a tabernacle as well as here. By the house eternal in the heavens, it is evident there is some respect had to the resurrection body, which proves that the place of the abode of the saints after the resurrection will be in heaven, as well as before.
> 
> If the saints were only to stay in heaven till the resurrection, then they would be pilgrims and strangers in heaven, as well as on earth, and the country that the saints of old declared plainly that they sought, though they were in possession of the earthly Canaan, will be but a temporary Canaan, as well as the earth; and in some respects more so, because the earth is to be their eternal abode, (though changed,) and not heaven.
> 
> We are directed to lay up treasure in heaven, as in a safe place, where it will be subject to no change or remove. The names of the saints are written or enrolled in heaven, and they have their citizenship in heaven, as being their proper fixed abode where they belong, and where they are to be settled. The inheritance, incorruptible, is reserved in heaven for the saints, and they are kept by the power of God to this salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time, or at the day of judgment. So that the inheritance in heaven is the saints' proper, incorruptible, and everlasting inheritance; and the saints shall be so far from changing the place of their abode in heaven for an abode on a renewed earth at the day of judgment, that this is the proper time of the church's being translated to this incorruptible inheritance in heaven, and the whole army of Israel's passing Jordan to that inheritance; for that is the last time wherein this salvation shall be revealed.
> 
> The Lord from heaven does not come to give his elect the country of the earthly Adam only renewed to the paradisaical state wherein the earthly Adam enjoyed it; Col. i. 5. "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven." The proper time of the reward of the saints is after the resurrection, as is evident by Luke xiv. 14, "But thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just;" and the proper place of that reward is heaven, as is evident by Matth. v. 12, "Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven;" Heb. x. 34, "Ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance;" and the time, when the apostle encourages them that they shall receive this enduring substance in heaven, is when Christ comes to judgment, as is evident by the three following verses.
> 
> Christ is entered into the holiest of all, and is set down for ever on the right hand of God in heaven, and therefore will not eternally leave heaven to dwell in this lower world in a renewed state.
> 
> Christ ascended into heaven as the forerunner of the church; and therefore the whole church shall enter there, even that part that shall be found alive at the day of judgment. Christ entered into heaven with his risen and glorified body, as an earnest of the same resurrection and ascension to the bodies of the saints; therefore, when the bodies of the saints shall rise, they shall also ascend into heaven.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thank you, Matthew, for that quote of Warfield's. He does support the view you hold. But I do not believe the apostle John supports his view. I quote from two portions of Rev 21, verses 1-5 and 9-11a, which are as follows:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful...

And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God...​
In these passages the phrases I want to focus on are "I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven", and again, John says an angel "shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God"; and then, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."

We have John describing the move of new Jerusalem (aka "the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem" Heb 12:22, and also "Jerusalem which is above" Gal 4:26), "descending out of heaven from God" and "coming down from God out of heaven" and to what end? That "the tabernacle of God [be] with men...[so that] he will dwell with them".

Now this cannot be dismissed with a facile "The new earth habitation theory is based on the misreading of one Scripture", as what I present is a complex of Scripture, with a plain sense, the venerable Warfield notwithstanding.

_The entire city of God_, new Jerusalem, is _leaving_ heaven, said in one place, "descending out of" and in another "coming down from God out of" to the place which is, purportedly, to be the fitting abode of men, the new earth. There really is no other place for the city of God to descend or come down to save earth. And that is the initial subject of John's vision, a new earth, as well a new heaven.

As a spiritual domain heaven has a certain meaning; as a cosmic / geographical realm heaven has another, as in the heavens. The heaven of God is what it is because it is His abode, as it were—where His throne is—and the city called by His name. When that city is moved from the dimension it has been in to another, namely planet earth, I would say that heaven has come down to earth, as God desires to be with His children. His Son, the Lord Christ, through the virgin birth, became united with the human nature, and in the resurrection that which was mortal is given to put on immortality (1 Cor 15:52, 53, 54), so heaven and earth now joined in the Person of the Lord Jesus, we have a new creation—an utterly new thing: “And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5).

The plain testimony of Scripture is to be our standard, not that of men however brilliant.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In these passages the phrases I want to focus on are "I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven", and again, John says an angel "shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God"; and then, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."



There is nothing about dwelling on earth there, Steve. You are reading the idea into the statements. It has no basis in the word of God, and runs contradictory to the express teaching of the Word. You should consider re-examining your theory in the light of Edwards' very straightforward Observations from Scripture, and in light of the reformed position as plainly taught in the Larger Catechism.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for the mental / spiritual exercise (I have learned a lot opposing you on a couple of topics—though in the main I agree with you on most things). How do you understand the passage in Isaiah 65:17-25? What's Isaiah saying?

And also, where is the new Jerusalem coming down to, as it clearly is leaving heaven?


----------



## MW

Steve, Isaiah was an Old Testament prophet writing before the Christ came in the flesh and the kingdom's inauguration with Him. He casts many things in the mould of the earthy figures with which he and the people were acquainted. We must look beyond these "land-bound" images to the true "inheritance-rest" which Christ gives His people in heavenly places, as the eschatology of Ephesians so clearly teaches.

I simply recommend looking at the various commentators on the idea of coming down out of heaven. The image conveys the impression that it is according to the divine plan and by God's gift, not a matter of human enterprise as with the building of Babylon. To extend the image beyond its intended reference point would require allegorical interpretation.


----------



## richardnz

Steve, I am not opposed to Hoekema's view that our resurrected material bodies dwell in a renewed physical world. It is a long time since I read “The Bible and the Future”, but my recollection is that although he makes a good case Hoekema did not use Rev 21 to illustrate the physical nature of our future abode.

In considering the meaning of the new heavens and new earth I recommend Calvin's commentary on Is 65.17 

“ For, lo, I will create new heavens and a new earth. By these metaphors he promises a remarkable change of affairs; as if God had said that he has both the inclination and the power not only to restore his Church, but to restore it in such a manner that it shall appear to gain new life and to dwell in a new world. These are exaggerated modes of expression; but the greatness of such a blessing, which was to be manifested at the coming of Christ, could not be described in any other way. Nor does he mean only the first coming, but the whole reign, which must be extended as far as to the last coming, as we have already said in expounding other passages.
Thus the world is (so to speak) renewed by Christ; and hence also the Apostle (Heb 2:5) calls it “a new age,” and undoubtedly alludes to this statement of the Prophet. Yet the Prophet speaks of the restoration of the Church after the return from Babylon. This is undoubtedly true; but that restoration is imperfect, if it be not extended as far as to Christ; and even now we are in the progress and accomplishment of it, and those things will not be fulfilled till the last resurrection, which has been prescribed to be our limit.”
Note that Calvin says the creation of the new heavens and earth begins with the NT church, but extends over the whole reign. The answer to Hoekema's problem with no weeping in the church age is answered by Calvin's reference to “exaggerated modes of expression”. The misery of unbelief is to a degree alleviated by Christ when we are saved, but not eliminated until Christ comes the second time. 
The idea that the New Heavens and the New Earth refer to the first coming of Christ would in general be seen as a radical view to day. However John Owen and others held the same view as Calvin. 
The idea that Rev 21 & 22 pictures the church in this millennium together with the future makes it so much easier to understand all the figurative language. In addition to those things I mentioned before, look at the picture of the river of life proceeding from the throne of God. Does God sit on a physical throne? Has the water of life ever been visible? Then we have the leaves of the tree of life healing the nations. Why is there a need for healing if this is is set in the post-judgment day future? 

The more you look at the use of biblical language in this passage the more difficult it becomes to see this as having any physical reference at all. It is all about the glory of Christ and the Church.


----------



## Peairtach

I don't know if anyone knows what a spiritual body is (I Corinthians 15:44), at least precisely, so it is difficult to speak of the exact nature of the new heavens and new earth, which will be appropriate for such glorified bodies.

As regards the sea, it is undoubtedly used in symbolical terms in Revelation. The forces of evil and chaos are associated with it.


----------



## MW

In support of Calvin's inaugurated view of the new heavens and new earth note the difference in perspectives in Isaiah, 2 Peter 3, and Rev. 21. In the first it is to be created, in the second it is to be looked for, and in the third it is seen as a vision. Also, Isaiah has a parallelism which ties the old heavens and earth to an administration as something which shall not be remembered or come into the mind.


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> Is there any connection to be made here to the view that the garden was a temporary, probationary state? Or is that question completely decoupled from this one?



I hadn't thought of that connection, but it seems one's view might be tied in with whether the Adamic administration is seen as promising continued life on earth or a translation to heaven. But then, even on the idea of continued earthly life, the fall might still be seen as necessitating a translation to heaven, as with Enoch.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

RichardNZ, Anthony Hoekema in the _Bible and the Future_ *does* use Revelation 21 to make his case for New Jerusalem being on the new earth—in his chapter, “The New Earth”, starting on its first page, 274. 

Please note, those who would deprecate with phrases such as “men…trying to soar above themselves in flights of fancy and pry[ing] into things which God has not revealed” and “It has no basis in the word of God, and runs contradictory to the express teaching of the Word”— the common view I have been propounding, namely New Jerusalem shall come down upon New Earth with God dwelling there in our midst—was in this textbook on Eschatology by Anthony Hoekema, which was the primary text on Eschatology used in Reformed seminaries until it was replaced by Cornelis P. Venema’s newer _The Promise of the Future_. Which, by the way, likewise teaches the same. A brief quote from Dr. Venema’s text:
“Heaven, the place of God’s special dwelling, will come down to earth and God will dwell in the midst of his people. The promise of the future for believers finds its focus in heaven, but it does not exclude the earth. Rather, all things will be united in Christ, whether things in heaven or things upon the earth (Eph. 1:10).” p 459​ 
I could go on and produce numerous other examples of responsible Reformed commentators taking the same position, but for the moment I will desist.

Some observations: One of the great dangers facing eschatology in the present day is from the two-pronged offensive mounted against balanced Biblical truth emanating from the domain of error—and it is *literalism* and *spiritualization*. The former mangles Biblical symbolism by insisting on a wooden literal interpretation against a genre style that holds no truck with such a hermeneutic; the latter insists—likewise against the apocalyptic and vision genres—on eviscerating the visions and symbols of any reality based in historical happenings, demanding an ethereality not warranted by the Biblical text. True, this latter, the Unmitigated Idealist (UI) view (I now prefer that adjective to “Pure” or “Consistent”) which _was_ an antidote to Historicist and Premil errors, yet has—when unmodified—dangerous error of its own, which I have interacted with here, and here ff..

Eschatology is perhaps the only Biblical doctrine which is still in flux, that is, it has not been settled in the Presbyterian and Reformed communities, or elsewhere in the church. The older theologians and commentators are generally not sound in this one area. Of course this statement will cause an uproar, and I shall be as a lightning rod taking bolts of censure, but I can deal with it.

The reason this is such a vitally important area of doctrine is that we are moving into a time where our societies (America, Europe, down under, the West generally, though other less developed nations are having their own seismic upheavals) are experiencing a profound satanic onslaught via the general culture, often precipitated by wicked and deluded rulers—which are themselves given as a judgment from on High against wicked nations, to bring them into havoc and ruin. And the saints are in the midst of it all, and it would help having a sense of where we are in the progression of the Apocalypse of John, i.e., where we are in the age. The UI would have us in a fog with their trafficking in abstract theorems, and the Premils would have us raptured out before it gets really bad—though the Hist. Premils at least have us go through serious tribulation, which is right.

I once heard a pastor wisely say that often the _shock_ of being hit by suffering unprepared is worse than the suffering itself. We are given the Revelation, as well the other Scriptures, that we may be prepared. Yet Revelation has a significance many do not well understand—it is the final prophecy, and the climax of all prior prophecy, where what is to come upon us is spelled out, and the Sovereignty of our God over all that occurs upon His earth—and especially what befalls His beloved saints—is shown to be in His mighty hand and governance. The Apocalypse rightly exposited is a source of profound blessing to the church. It is His final word to us.

But back to the new earth and new heavens. God gave humankind the earth to subdue and cultivate, and live upon (Gen 1:28). In Psalm 115:16 He says,
The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s: 
but the earth hath he given to the children of men.​ 
In Isaiah 45:18 He said He formed the earth to be inhabited. Jesus said that we who are His meek ones shall *inherit the earth* (Matt 5:5), as also says David in Psalm 37:9, 29. Are folks telling us these are empty words spoken by our Saviour? For there are those saying that we shall surely *not* inherit the earth, but _only_ Heaven.

Yet all things are resolved when we see His word:
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. (Eph 1:8,9,10)​ 
We shall definitely be in Heaven, yet Heaven shall be upon New Earth. This is the resolution of the apparent conundrum.

And so many Scriptures will be fulfilled and clear in our understanding:
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: 
and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
For the kingdom is the LORD’s:
and he is the governor among the nations. (Psalm 22:27, 28)

All the earth shall worship thee,
and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name. Selah (Psalm 66:4)​ 
And this promise to our father Abraham shall be filled to the uttermost: “…in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen 12:3)
_______

I will shortly be traveling, and will not have a steady internet connection, so if I do not respond in a timely fashion, please don’t think I have quit the field—I’ll be back.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

I once again just leave you to your views, Steve, and to others to judge for themselves. I am sure the teaching of Edwards will show the force of truth and the Christian's own spiritual instinct will direct him heavenward.


----------

