7 year tribulation??

[cupotea]

For the record, Dispensational Premillennialism is only 'very obviously the majority opinion' here in the US.

I cannot think of a Reformer who was not Amillennial.

But it is good to remember that, as a distinct term, Amillennialism is fairly recent. Prior to it's coinage it was simply a variety of Postmillennialism, or, it might be more proper to say that Postmillennialism [i:a6d5abccea]was[/i:a6d5abccea] Amillennialism until it distinguished itself and began to gain adherents with the rise of rationalism.

 

[RamistThomist]

[quote:5ca4c0b3cb][i:5ca4c0b3cb]Originally posted by Steadfast[/i:5ca4c0b3cb]
For the record, Dispensational Premillennialism is only 'very obviously the majority opinion' here in the US.
[/quote:5ca4c0b3cb]

On the upside, it is slowly dying in academic circles. Even DTS is realizing the untenable position of classic dispensationalism.

What is even worse is when you have Church members (well-intentioned) who demand adherence to Pretribulationialism and promote its spread with missionary zeal. To borrow a phrase from Amillennialist Mike Horton, "You will search their mission statements long and hard and find no mention of justification, imputation of Christ's righteousness, etc., but you will be confronted with premillennialism as a cardinal doctrine.

I remember in my amillennial days I was at a bible study on Revelation (why? don't ask) and made the comment on my millennial position. I was then confronted with, "How can you still call yourself a Christian?"uzzled:

On the record I am Southern Baptist and although we have no official millennial position...ahem yeah...try preaching amill/postmill from the pulpit in most churches, in most churches.

Your other post was very good and I hope to get to it. BTW, on your comments on Warfield and Boettner, did you get that from the book or from the alliance website?

[Edited on 6-23-2004 by Finn McCool]

[Edited on 6-23-2004 by Finn McCool]

 

[cupotea]

Ya know I thought it was from Riddlebarger's book "The Case for Amillennialism, but it turns out it's from Anthony Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future".

Actually, it might be from both because Riddlebarger cites it continually in his book.

And if you haven't read it, it is STILL [u:423d7c6043]THE[/u:423d7c6043] text for Reformed Amillennialism. It is still in print from Eerdmans.

Hoekema is very fair with all the views other than his own and does a sterling job of unpacking classic Amillennialism in a readable and interesting fashion.

[Edited on 6-24-2004 by Steadfast]

 

[luvroftheWord]

I agree. I go to Hoekema regularly for my eschatological studies. You can't beat those Dutch guys sometimes.

 

[Bryan]

"Amillennialism has always been the majority position of the Christian family"

Ya, I find that funny since everything I have read says that Historical PreMil was the view for the first little while

Bryan
SDG

 

[A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:2380f018e9][i:2380f018e9]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:2380f018e9]
[quote:2380f018e9][i:2380f018e9]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:2380f018e9]
So Craig;
You don't believe in a tribulation time?
I know there are different beliefs, but I can't fathom believing Revelation has already been fulfilled. [/quote:2380f018e9]
Largely fulfilled. I believe it. The "great tribulation" of Matthew 24 happened in the 1st century. [/quote:2380f018e9]

I agree. If a Christian living under Neros reign isnt a tibulation saint I dont know what is.

 

[dado6]

To answer Nathan's original question: The word tribulation appears many times in most English bibles (24 in the KJV I believe) but nowhere does it refer to a period of seven (or 3 1/2) years prior to the Second Coming/millennium. The seven year period, as was pointed out before, is based on an odd interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 and it is said to refer to the period of tribulation described in Matthew 13 and 24. That's how they get a seven year tribulation.

I am of the view that Revelation deals with the entire Church age for the most part. I do not believe that 19:11 refers to the second coming. John saw Christ ascend and based on Acts 1:11, it is hard to see how John would be describing the second coming here. Rather I believe this ushers in the description of Christ's present ongoing work of saving His people, spreading His word and destroying His enemies on earth.

I also do not believe there will be a final apostasy. I see the 1000 years/little while/loosing as contrasting the temporal and intermediate states where Satan has no power over those who are present with the Lord (v.4) or in Hades (v.5)...that his power is limited only to sinful man in the physical world. I think the remainder of chapter 20 bears this view out.

And Seth is on the mark by refuting the idea that all the reformers were a-mil. John Calvin (Institutes 3.20.40) and the Westminster Larger Catechism (191) both make reference to the conquering of the world by the Gospel. Many Puritans looked forward to a world where the Gospel was much more widespread and ingrained than it was in their time. These ideas are much more in line with postmillenial thought than the modern amillennial view.

And I am not a recontructionist.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[dado6]

Sorry, that should be 3.20.42 in Calvin's Institutes.

Thanks,
Rob