Survey on Your Eschatology

What camp best describes your eschatology?

  • Premillennial

    Votes: 6 5.5%
  • Amillennial

    Votes: 75 68.2%
  • Postmillennial / Partial Preterist

    Votes: 27 24.5%
  • Preterist More than Partial

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Panmillennial (It will all pan out in the end. Unsure)

    Votes: 7 6.4%

  • Total voters
    110
Status
Not open for further replies.
Post mill

It is (I believe) the only logical and consistent position.
Is 11:9
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
 
Last edited:
A Mill always and this will make a lot of people very upset but with what we have there is really only one understanding of the Bible others come from trying to make things fit in such a way because someone told them that. I think Reformed A Mill is the correct understanding of the Bible it's the easiest way to understand the Bible there are no hoops to jump through. I was brought up in a Pre Mill church and I used to laugh when we went through Revelation or Daniel because it really doesn't work but it's a great story to bring in new believers.

Think that several prominent Reformedwere also Historical PreMil...
 
Pre mill is kinda like a cult thing remember Calvin killed the leader at the time for pre mill belief
 
Pre mill is kinda like a cult thing remember Calvin killed the leader at the time for pre mill belief
Joseph,
The Premillennial view has long been an accepted position in Reformed Churches. Consider such men as Horatius & Andrew Bonar, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer. Do you really want to consign these servants of Christ to being cultists?

Further, Calvin didn't kill anyone--that is slander. Read up on the Servetus issue--there is a lot we can learn from it about the duties of Christians in general, of ministers of the Gospel, and of the civil magistrate toward heretics. Calvin displayed an amazing balance of grace, sternness, and righteousness in his dealings with Servetus.
 
Joseph,
The Premillennial view has long been an accepted position in Reformed Churches. Consider such men as Horatius & Andrew Bonar, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer. Do you really want to consign these servants of Christ to being cultists?

Further, Calvin didn't kill anyone--that is slander. Read up on the Servetus issue--there is a lot we can learn from it about the duties of Christians in general, of ministers of the Gospel, and of the civil magistrate toward heretics. Calvin displayed an amazing balance of grace, sternness, and righteousness in his dealings with Servetus.

And anyway, Servetus, so justly executed, denied the Trinity--which was a crime even by the jus gentium
 
So then your a Dispensationalist and therefore are not completely Reformed. A true reformed person is confessional, Calvinistic, and covenantal. To deny Covenant Theology is deny the Reformed tradition and the Confessions.
Dr MacArthur os also one who holds to same viewoints, as I did once, and think many Calvinistic Baptists would hold that also!
 
Joseph,
The Premillennial view has long been an accepted position in Reformed Churches. Consider such men as Horatius & Andrew Bonar, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer. Do you really want to consign these servants of Christ to being cultists?

Further, Calvin didn't kill anyone--that is slander. Read up on the Servetus issue--there is a lot we can learn from it about the duties of Christians in general, of ministers of the Gospel, and of the civil magistrate toward heretics. Calvin displayed an amazing balance of grace, sternness, and righteousness in his dealings with Servetus.

I have had spirited discussions with some who denied that historical premil wa acceptable as Reformed view, as they claimed contridicted 1689 Confession?
 
Dr MacArthur os also one who holds to same viewoints, as I did once, and think many Calvinistic Baptists would hold that also!
But MacArthur is not reformed. He is simply a Calvinist. Being reformed is more that just believing the five points.
 
I have had spirited discussions with some who denied that historical premil wa acceptable as Reformed view, as they claimed contridicted 1689 Confession?
Someone would have a hard time proving that any of the confessions exclude premillennialism. Dispensationalism is contrary to the Reformed confessions, but that is a different question.
 
But MacArthur is not reformed. He is simply a Calvinist. Being reformed is more that just believing the five points.

That's not necessarily accurate. Being "Reformed" is definitely more than believing the doctrines of grace (i.e. the five points). But being a Calvinist is also more than believing the doctrines of grace.
Jochaim Westphal (1510-1574) was a Lutheran theologian who debated with Calvin in the 16th century. He coined the term "Calvinist" in writing back and forth to Calvin about the sacraments. Initially, it meant those who adhered to "Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper." That even today narrows things down quite a bit on those who hold to Calvin's sacramental view of the supper (which in my opinion he was right on).
Later on "Calvinist" then was the accepted term for all those who held to the general body of teaching of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion."
It never referred to just believing the doctrines of grace. Those who held to the doctrines of grace have a wonderful term applied to them through the ages, "Christian."
Limiting the term Calvinist to the 5 points is part of reconstructionist history, and the watering down of the contemporary "reformed" Christian culture.
 
Someone would have a hard time proving that any of the confessions exclude premillennialism.

They don't exclude chiliasm per se, which was often stated in terms of Christ returning spiritually rather than physically, but as premillennialism specifically claims that Christ returns physically to this earth I would say that premillennialism is inconsistent with both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The clear doctrine of both is that Christ's exaltation in glory and headship over all things includes being seated at the right hand of the Father; furthermore, His coming again is essentially and sequentially connected with the resurrection, the judgment, and the appointment of each individual to either heaven or hell.

The Bonars were confessional and constitutional in the main, but it cannot be said that their adherence to premillennialism was confessional and constitutional. Their view can be likened to the day-age or gap theories, which were unchallenged on an official level.
 
Ask Mr. Religion, in answer to your query, here is my take on the LBCF (Ch31/32) and eschatology. I am quoting verbatim from a letter entitled Caveats, Comments, Concerns, Questions and Exceptions about the 1689 LBCF and Constitution of TRBC that I sent to the Elders at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church La Mirada, California when I applied for membership.

Chapters 31 & 32: I am in agreement with what is said. However I understand what is said to be the "bare bones" as it does not delve into specific details regarding the end times and eschatology beyond the minimum of what must be believed in order to be orthodox in the faith. That said, in the interest of full disclosure my understanding of the Scriptures leads to the dispensational pre-tribulational premillennial persuasion when it comes to eschatology. However I understand I COULD be wrong yet I do not view this as a "salvation pending" issue and it is my policy NOT to refuse fellowship with those who view these things differently as long as they affirm the "bare bones" set forth in these two chapters. There was a time in my walk when I would have made this a test of fellowship but that is not currently the case.
 
Ask Mr. Religion, in answer to your query, here is my take on the LBCF (Ch31/32) and eschatology. I am quoting verbatim from a letter entitled Caveats, Comments, Concerns, Questions and Exceptions about the 1689 LBCF and Constitution of TRBC that I sent to the Elders at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church La Mirada, California when I applied for membership.

Chapters 31 & 32: I am in agreement with what is said. However I understand what is said to be the "bare bones" as it does not delve into specific details regarding the end times and eschatology beyond the minimum of what must be believed in order to be orthodox in the faith. That said, in the interest of full disclosure my understanding of the Scriptures leads to the dispensational pre-tribulational premillennial persuasion when it comes to eschatology. However I understand I COULD be wrong yet I do not view this as a "salvation pending" issue and it is my policy NOT to refuse fellowship with those who view these things differently as long as they affirm the "bare bones" set forth in these two chapters. There was a time in my walk when I would have made this a test of fellowship but that is not currently the case.
Do you affirm or deny that there is one Covenant of Grace since the Fall under different administrations?
 
...but as premillennialism specifically claims that Christ returns physically to this earth I would say that premillennialism is inconsistent with both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

So the problem here is not that Christ will physically return and dwell with men, but with the belief that Christ will physically return to our present fallen earth?
 
But MacArthur is not reformed. He is simply a Calvinist. Being reformed is more that just believing the five points.
That is why there are Reformed Baptists and Calvinistic Baptists, as Reformed ones hold to all that you described, while calvinistic ones tend to hold with mainly Reformed Sotierology, keeping Baptist views on Baptism, church government, personal convictions etc!
 
Someone would have a hard time proving that any of the confessions exclude premillennialism. Dispensationalism is contrary to the Reformed confessions, but that is a different question.
He just argued tha the Amil view was thespeciic one of the Confession!
 
They don't exclude chiliasm per se, which was often stated in terms of Christ returning spiritually rather than physically, but as premillennialism specifically claims that Christ returns physically to this earth I would say that premillennialism is inconsistent with both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The clear doctrine of both is that Christ's exaltation in glory and headship over all things includes being seated at the right hand of the Father; furthermore, His coming again is essentially and sequentially connected with the resurrection, the judgment, and the appointment of each individual to either heaven or hell.

The Bonars were confessional and constitutional in the main, but it cannot be said that their adherence to premillennialism was confessional and constitutional. Their view can be likened to the day-age or gap theories, which were unchallenged on an official level.
That view is acceptable within the 1689 Baptist Confession though, correct?
 
That's not necessarily accurate. Being "Reformed" is definitely more than believing the doctrines of grace (i.e. the five points). But being a Calvinist is also more than believing the doctrines of grace.
Jochaim Westphal (1510-1574) was a Lutheran theologian who debated with Calvin in the 16th century. He coined the term "Calvinist" in writing back and forth to Calvin about the sacraments. Initially, it meant those who adhered to "Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper." That even today narrows things down quite a bit on those who hold to Calvin's sacramental view of the supper (which in my opinion he was right on).
Later on "Calvinist" then was the accepted term for all those who held to the general body of teaching of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion."
It never referred to just believing the doctrines of grace. Those who held to the doctrines of grace have a wonderful term applied to them through the ages, "Christian."
Limiting the term Calvinist to the 5 points is part of reconstructionist history, and the watering down of the contemporary "reformed" Christian culture.

There seems to be some overla[[ing within Christinaity, as there are Christians who hold with all Reformed Theology, such as Covenant/Confessions, others hold to main Sotierology view, s seen as calvinist, and others would be neither, but hold to God saving through sovereign act, like PB and Lutheryns!
 
The other person that was interacting with on that discussion online...
@Dachaser
Please identify "that discussion" in the context of this thread. Your post appears in the middle of things, so try to give the reader some contextual clues as to exactly who or what you are referring to when you post.
 
So the problem here is not that Christ will physically return and dwell with men, but with the belief that Christ will physically return to our present fallen earth?

Yes. It is fundamental to the mediatorial dominion of the Messiah to sit at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool; and the last enemy is death, 1 Corinthians 15. His exaltation is above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named in this world and that which is to come, and this is necessary to His headship over all things for the church, Ephesians 1. For Him to return to this fallen world to complete His Messianic mission for a period of time would require Him to be made lower than the angels, which would mean He could not fully execute His mediatorial offices and bring many sons to glory, Hebrews 2. The book of Hebrews is explicit and repetitive on the point that Christ's session at the right hand of God is necessary for the fulfilment of all His offices as prophet, priest, and king. We are to hear Him who is greater than Moses and faithful as a Son over God's house; trust Him who as great high priest effectually ministers on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary and appears in the presence of God for us; and obey Him who as king of righteousness rules us from heaven and saves us because He is the right hand of the Most High.
 
Yes. It is fundamental to the mediatorial dominion of the Messiah to sit at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool; and the last enemy is death, 1 Corinthians 15. His exaltation is above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named in this world and that which is to come, and this is necessary to His headship over all things for the church, Ephesians 1. For Him to return to this fallen world to complete His Messianic mission for a period of time would require Him to be made lower than the angels, which would mean He could not fully execute His mediatorial offices and bring many sons to glory, Hebrews 2. The book of Hebrews is explicit and repetitive on the point that Christ's session at the right hand of God is necessary for the fulfilment of all His offices as prophet, priest, and king. We are to hear Him who is greater than Moses and faithful as a Son over God's house; trust Him who as great high priest effectually ministers on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary and appears in the presence of God for us; and obey Him who as king of righteousness rules us from heaven and saves us because He is the right hand of the Most High.

Glorious! Thanks.
 
Yes. It is fundamental to the mediatorial dominion of the Messiah to sit at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool; and the last enemy is death, 1 Corinthians 15. His exaltation is above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named in this world and that which is to come, and this is necessary to His headship over all things for the church, Ephesians 1. For Him to return to this fallen world to complete His Messianic mission for a period of time would require Him to be made lower than the angels, which would mean He could not fully execute His mediatorial offices and bring many sons to glory, Hebrews 2. The book of Hebrews is explicit and repetitive on the point that Christ's session at the right hand of God is necessary for the fulfilment of all His offices as prophet, priest, and king. We are to hear Him who is greater than Moses and faithful as a Son over God's house; trust Him who as great high priest effectually ministers on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary and appears in the presence of God for us; and obey Him who as king of righteousness rules us from heaven and saves us because He is the right hand of the Most High.
There is also the aspect of Him establishing his kingdom and domenion over all the Earth at His second coming, as there can still be an historical premil application, correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top