Have historical or current events influence your eschatology?

[Leslie]

By historical events I mean Reformation history, the history of Catholicism, the Holocaust and the like. By current events I mean the rise of Islamism, the Ebola epidemic, developments in the nation of Israel. Also include future possibilities. If there should be a third temple built and OT sacrifices reinstituted, would that bear on your view of end times? What if a world ruler arose with a flag bearing 666 and his demanding to be worshipped? By influence I mean do world events inform or alter your interpretation of the scriptures regarding the end times, or could they?

I wanted to make this into a poll, but the poll feature would not work. 1. Neither historical nor current/future events are relevant. 2. Historical events are relevant but not current/future events. 3. Current/future events are relevant but not historical. 4. Both historical and current/future events are relevant. 5. Nothing has been relevant so far, but in theory something could be in the future.

 

[Peairtach]

Yes, I believe historical events are important to interpreting biblical prophecy. You only have to look at the Book of Daniel - for example -for that, with its prophecies about the four great empires, the rise of Christ's kingdom, the intertestamental period, and the Maccabees.

As far as I can see, the Book of Revelation is not purely idealist, either, although more idealist than some prophetic books, but certain symbols in Revelation point to particular historical events and don't just exemplify general principles. E.g. the wounding of the Beast's head and its healing points to the conversion of the Roman Empire and the West to an imperfect Christendom, and yet the beastliness of society and civil government continuing.

This worldly "nose in the trough" beastliness is only defeated by Christ by His Word in Revelation 19, along with "the false prophet" who represents this worldly beastliness and falsehood in the Christian religion.

Dispensationalism is a poor hermeneutic, that while it will not necessarily impinge on one's fundamental doctrine of salvation, or threaten to overthrow one's faith, will lead you up by path meadow in this area of bible study and prevent you from getting soul-satisfying results from it. Instead you end up with ridiculous speculations such as about the building of a third temple in the earthly Jerusalem, or Henry Kissinger being the antichrist, blood moons, etc, etc. It can only be called an evangelical science fiction.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[whirlingmerc]

Historical events are somewhat relevant but may be misleading since as people we tend to be trapped in the pressent looking at thing myopically.

Historical views are relevant for purposes of consideration

The Bible gets the most weight
The gospel will be preached to all men and then the end shall come

 

[Leslie]

Yes, I believe historical events are important to interpreting biblical prophecy. You only have to look at the Book of Daniel - for example -for that, with its prophecies about the four great empires, the rise of Christ's kingdom, the intertestamental period, and the Maccabees.

As far as I can see, the Book of Revelation is not purely idealist, either, although more idealist than some prophetic books, but certain symbols in Revelation point to particular historical events and don't just exemplify general principles. E.g. the wounding of the Beast's head and its healing points to the conversion of the Roman Empire and the West to an imperfect Christendom, and yet the beastliness of society and civil government continuing.

This worldly "nose in the trough" beastliness is only defeated by Christ by His Word in Revelation 19, along with "the false prophet" who represents this worldly beastliness and falsehood in the Christian religion.

Dispensationalism is a poor hermeneutic, that while it will not necessarily impinge on one's fundamental doctrine of salvation, or threaten to overthrow one's faith, will lead you up by path meadow in this area of bible study and prevent you from getting soul-satisfying results from it. Instead you end up with ridiculous speculations such as about the building of a third temple in the earthly Jerusalem, or Henry Kissinger being the antichrist, blood moons, etc, etc. It can only be called an evangelical science fiction.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Do I understand you correctly? You are saying that in the past there was correlation between prophecy and subsequent events, but that now some world events that evangelicals would label as eschatologically significant (such as the building of the third temple) would have no significance? This seems to be part and parcel of a "has-been" mentality regarding the scriptures and spiritual realities (not implying that this is necessarily wrong). In the past there was prophecy and fulfilment and God's intervening actively in history, but one cannot and indeed must not expect to see that in the present age. Is this a fair statement of your position?

 

[Peairtach]

The world event that Ezekiel's temple points to is the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Testament Church which consists not of bricks and mortar but Jewish and Gentiles living stones.

We should interpret more mysterious passages of Scripture in the light of clearer ones.

It is not God's will that a third bricks and mortar temple be built and would be a further unbelieving challenge to Christ and His work, and not a fulfillment of Ezekiel's or other prophecies.

We hope and pray rather than build a useless and pointless temple of bricks and mortar of ginormous dimensions that breaks the bounds of Jerusalem, that more and more Jews take their place in the "third temple", the Church and Israel of God (Gal 6:16).

We must always interpret prophecy using the Apostolic interpretation and expectations, and interpret more difficult and "head scratching" passages in the light of clarity elsewhere.

If the Apostles say that a type has been fulfilled by the antitype in this era it is sound biblical interpretation to go with that.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes.

1. Jesuit pope preaching One World Government.
2. Isis as the locusts of Revelation.
3. Israel (and all the Republicans said "Amen")
4. United Nations
5. European Union.

Tower of Babel ideology has been around for a long time, but today it is technologically possible for a One World Government.

 

[MW]

No. Eschatology influences the way one views historical and current events. Phenomena require principia to interpret them.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

 

[Peairtach]

Yes.

1. Jesuit pope preaching One World Government.
2. Isis as the locusts of Revelation.
3. Israel (and all the Republicans said "Amen" )
4. United Nations
5. European Union.

Tower of Babel ideology has been around for a long time, but today it is technologically possible for a One World Government.

Apart from 2 are you saying that these specific twentieth/twenty-first century events are predicted in Scripture or are you rather moving from more general predictions to relate them to the more specific?

Re Isis, how would you show that the Apostle John was speaking about that specific phenomenon of the last couple of years, or that it would be even likely that Isis is specifically treated in Revelation?

Surely a book like Revelation, the contents of which were shortly to commence after its revelation to John and the Seven Churches of Asia, deals in big themes and broad historical brushstrokes? Is it likely that things such as Napoleon, the Kaiser, the Nazis, Communism, the development of the godless West, Al Qaeda and Isis, etc, etc, are specifically mentioned in Revelation? Or rather that they are not specifically mentioned but may or may not be manifestations of the Beast in society and civil government, ungodly and sometimes even Christ-persecuting civil government?

Those that find, or can find, every historical personage and event specifically spoken about in Revelation, tend to bring this part of God's Word into disrepute.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes.

1. Jesuit pope preaching One World Government.
2. Isis as the locusts of Revelation.
3. Israel (and all the Republicans said "Amen" )
4. United Nations
5. European Union.

Tower of Babel ideology has been around for a long time, but today it is technologically possible for a One World Government.

Apart from 2 are you saying that these specific twentieth/twenty-first century events are predicted in Scripture or are you rather moving from more general predictions to relate them to the more specific?

I honestly don't know. As a historic premillennialist I try to keep specific events seperate from my own underlying views. Still, it's something to think about. Jesus told us to discern the times and even if I am wrong, which I probably am, I think I am being faithful to his admonition.

Re Isis, how would you show that the Apostle John was speaking about that specific phenomenon of the last couple of years, or that it would be even likely that Isis is specifically treated in Revelation?

That suggestion recently came to me. I don't have any definite conclusions.

Surely a book like Revelation, the contents of which were shortly to commence after its revelation to John and the Seven Churches of Asia, deals in big themes and broad historical brushstrokes? Is it likely that things such as Napoleon, the Kaiser, the Nazis, Communism, the development of the godless West, Al Qaeda and Isis, etc, etc, are specifically mentioned in Revelation?

Maybe they are. Asking the question doesn't refute the statement. Was it too particular to see Alexander the great in the book of Daniel?

Or rather that they are not specifically mentioned but may or may not be manifestations of the Beast in society and civil government, ungodly and sometimes even Christ-persecuting civil government?

Perhaps. I am really not dogmatic on it.

Those that find, or can find, every historical personage and event specifically spoken about in Revelation, tend to bring this part of God's Word into disrepute.

Which assumes I am doing just that, which I am not. And the opposite pole is just as bad: idealizing everything in Scripture so that the particular means nothing.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Mary and Jacob,

This kind of connecting-the-dots between prophecy and current events is inherently speculative. I Timothy 1:4 encourages us to avoid "fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification." Whatever connection we might try to make to any current event would be unproven and groundless. It could not edify and it may in fact stir up harmful disputes between brethren. While I certainly don't think you are trying to stir up an argument, it is hard to see the value in speculating about these things.

 

[Philip]

Yes. In the sense that every time someone tries to connect the dots they end up being wrong (ie: 14th-century Christians believing that the Black Death was a sign of the beginning of the apocalypse). No in the sense that I do not attempt to do so. The book of Revelation is full of (to quote Tolkien) "things that were, things that are, and some things which have not yet come to pass" and I'm not entirely sure that I am qualified to judge which is which except (as in Revelation 12) it is clear what is being referred to.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't play connect the dots. The one thing I have difficulty with my premillennialism is that most premils do not see the Pope as the Man of Sin. The historic Reformed church confesses him so. (This is the Reformed teaching) Admittedly, the Jesuit in charge now fits the bill as well as anyone could image.

Part of my original response was tongue-in-cheek. On the other hand, when Jesus said discern the times, and the men of Issachar were praised for doing just that, and we have Satanic institutions today like the UN and the EU, and given the fact that global capital is highly liquid et al, I am simply not going to say, "it's a coincidence and the things in biblical prophecy are just spiritual truths with no historical relevance."

Mary and Jacob,

This kind of connecting-the-dots between prophecy and current events is inherently speculative. I Timothy 1:4 encourages us to avoid "fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification." Whatever connection we might try to make to any current event would be unproven and groundless. It could not edify and it may in fact stir up harmful disputes between brethren. While I certainly don't think you are trying to stir up an argument, it is hard to see the value in speculating about these things.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I am simply not going to say, "it's a coincidence and the things in biblical prophecy are just spiritual truths with no historical relevance."

Good, because that would not be true. And of course no one here is encouraging you draw such a conclusion. We do not believe in coincidences. We believe in providence. But drawing any hard and fast conclusions about any of the above mentioned things would be speculative and unfruitful.

 

[Peairtach]

I don't play connect the dots. The one thing I have difficulty with my premillennialism is that most premils do not see the Pope as the Man of Sin. The historic Reformed church confesses him so. (This is the Reformed teaching) Admittedly, the Jesuit in charge now fits the bill as well as anyone could image.

Part of my original response was tongue-in-cheek. On the other hand, when Jesus said discern the times, and the men of Issachar were praised for doing just that, and we have Satanic institutions today like the UN and the EU, and given the fact that global capital is highly liquid et al, I am simply not going to say, "it's a coincidence and the things in biblical prophecy are just spiritual truths with no historical relevance."

Mary and Jacob,

This kind of connecting-the-dots between prophecy and current events is inherently speculative. I Timothy 1:4 encourages us to avoid "fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification." Whatever connection we might try to make to any current event would be unproven and groundless. It could not edify and it may in fact stir up harmful disputes between brethren. While I certainly don't think you are trying to stir up an argument, it is hard to see the value in speculating about these things.

The main problem with most premillennialists is that they are futurists, at least those of the dispensationalist kind. Are historical premillennialists futurists? With futurism, all of Revelation 6-20 is future to us, and it often seems for many futurist teachers and preachers as if it's just about to happen, and "the end times", as they say, are upon us.

Every time there is e.g. war in the Middle East it seems that this is the sign once again that "the end times are upon us". Rather than learning general but substantial and sound lessons, which may be applied, about Christ's rule over history, about the progress/regress of the Church and about the enemies of the Gospel, and being fed by the Word of God, futurists move from one unprofitable and unsatisfactory crisis to another, based on particular events that are currently in the papers, and yet the "end times" never seems to arrive.

If you realise that Revelation 6-20 is not just about time future to us, but is about the whole interadventual period, you realise that the book must deal in broad principles or ideals rather than be specifically focussed on transient events like the rise of Isis, 9/11 or World War I.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Leslie]

The world event that Ezekiel's temple points to is the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Testament Church which consists not of bricks and mortar but Jewish and Gentiles living stones.

We should interpret more mysterious passages of Scripture in the light of clearer ones.

It is not God's will that a third bricks and mortar temple be built and would be a further unbelieving challenge to Christ and His work, and not a fulfillment of Ezekiel's or other prophecies.

We hope and pray rather than build a useless and pointless temple of bricks and mortar of ginormous dimensions that breaks the bounds of Jerusalem, that more and more Jews take their place in the "third temple", the Church and Israel of God (Gal 6:16).

We must always interpret prophecy using the Apostolic interpretation and expectations, and interpret more difficult and "head scratching" passages in the light of clarity elsewhere.

If the Apostles say that a type has been fulfilled by the antitype in this era it is sound biblical interpretation to go with that.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

The fact of the matter is that the third temple has been entirely funded and most if not all the furnishings obtained and in storage. The construction could and would happen if and when a piece of land is available. The question to you is, if it happens, what if anything will it do to your eschatology? It seems to me that if one interprets a passage figuratively (Ezekiel's temple) and then it is fulfilled literally (there exists a physical building with this design), then, logically, the figurative interpretation has to go. My view of end times is that most likely the some leaders of the religion of peace will play a prominent role in the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. I can't account for the 666 number, but apparently there is some connection to Hitler. If events develop such that islamism fizzles (so I'm wrong about the AC) but a regenerated third reich appears (like one of my friends thinks it will), then that's more likely. I see no harm in comparing current events to the scriptures while staying free to change one's views as world events develop. Dogmatism at this point seems inappropriate. Jesus said the purpose of prophecy was so that when it happens we will know. Before it all happens the best we can do is guess, but we may be wrong.

 

[Peairtach]

The question to you is, if it happens, what if anything will it do to your eschatology? It seems to me that if one interprets a passage figuratively (Ezekiel's temple) and then it is fulfilled literally (there exists a physical building with this design), then, logically, the figurative interpretation has to go.

Ezekiel's temple is far too big and far too incompatible with the first advent of Christ to be literally fulfilled. The New Testament Church breaks the bounds of the OT Church.

If a temple was built in Jerusalem it wouldn't be Ezekiel's and it wouldn't be owned of God.

I can't account for the 666 number, but apparently there is some connection to Hitler.

If you can get Hitler and the Nazis into a book on prophecy, you'll probably shift more copies.

 

[Jack K]

The simple answer is no. The Bible helps us to understand events. Events should not cause us to change our understanding of the Bible.

God may work certain events so that biblical truth becomes clearer to us. Perhaps certain world leaders help us to better see the need for the return of Christ and the scope of the victory he will complete. But far too many regretable errors have resulted from eschatology that's built first upon world events rather than upon Scripture.

Personally, I suspect that if a third Temple is ever constructed, it will be because people are trying to make Scripture, as they see it, come true in their timeframe; not something to cause us to rethink the true meaning of the Bible.

 

[Peairtach]

The simple answer is no. The Bible helps us to understand events. Events should not cause us to change our understanding of the Bible.

God may work certain events so that biblical truth becomes clearer to us. Perhaps certain world leaders help us to better see the need for the return of Christ and the scope of the victory he will complete. But far too many regretable errors have resulted from eschatology that's built first upon world events rather than upon Scripture.

Personally, I suspect that if a third Temple is ever constructed, it will be because people are trying to make Scripture, as they see it, come true in their timeframe; not something to cause us to rethink the true meaning of the Bible.

I generally agree with you on this, Jack, but am still trying to understand what is meant by historical events not affecting our eschatology. Surely there is a "hermeneutical spiral" in certain cases.

For instance if the four beasts of Daniel are the four empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome) as many Reformed scholars have believed, surely world history had to be consulted to some extent to come to this conclusion, thus shaping our view of Daniel's eschatology.

Maybe I'm just not understanding precisely enough what the "No's" are meaning.

 

[Jack K]

The simple answer is no. The Bible helps us to understand events. Events should not cause us to change our understanding of the Bible.

God may work certain events so that biblical truth becomes clearer to us. Perhaps certain world leaders help us to better see the need for the return of Christ and the scope of the victory he will complete. But far too many regretable errors have resulted from eschatology that's built first upon world events rather than upon Scripture.

Personally, I suspect that if a third Temple is ever constructed, it will be because people are trying to make Scripture, as they see it, come true in their timeframe; not something to cause us to rethink the true meaning of the Bible.

I generally agree with you on this, Jack, but am still trying to understand what is meant by historical events not affecting our eschatology. Surely there is a "hermeneutical spiral" in certain cases.

For instance if the four beasts of Daniel are the four empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome) as many Reformed scholars have believed, surely world history had to be consulted to some extent to come to this conclusion, thus shaping our view of Daniel's eschatology.

Maybe I'm just not understanding precisely enough what the "No's" are meaning.

I'm harldly an expert in this area, so I'm open to being corrected, but...

When I look at the four beasts in Daniel I see them through the lens of Jesus calling himself the Son of Man (which is part of Scripture), and based on that I go back to the text and say that the four beasts would seem to be certain nameable eras in world history. Even then I'm not exactly sure how to deliniate those eras, and I'm far more hesitant to do that sort of thing with post-Scripture events because we don't have Scripture's after-the-fact commentary on them. I don't know of anything since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD that I would feel certain enough about to say, "I believe this is the precise event/person the Bible was talking about in such-and-such a verse." Furthermore, I suspect God does not intend for his Word to be authenticated by detailed prophecies coming true (as in, say, Daniel 11) in our era, at least not as a general rule. Christ's resurrection (given to us in Scripture) was the great authentication, and is sufficient until his return.

Again... that's just an off-the-cuff bit of how I think, but it may explain why I came up with a No.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am simply not going to say, "it's a coincidence and the things in biblical prophecy are just spiritual truths with no historical relevance."

Good, because that would not be true. And of course no one here is encouraging you draw such a conclusion. We do not believe in coincidences. We believe in providence. But drawing any hard and fast conclusions about any of the above mentioned things would be speculative and unfruitful.

In the book Four Views on Revelation, the idealist expositor, Hamstra I believe, argues precisely that, which is bad.

I simply cannot believe it is fruitless, since we have good OT evidence for the saints there interpreting prophecy as such.

 

[David_A_Reed]

Well, if the great Reformers could let events that were "current" for them influence their eschatology, why can't we?

Calvin spoke of the papacy and Islam as the two "horns" of Antichrist, in connection with what these two were doing in his day.

Luther spoke of the papacy and Islam as the two "legs" of Antichrist, likewise in relation to current events (in his day).

Jonathan Edwards pointed to contemporary events (that were "current events" for him) in his understanding of these passages: Daniel 7:8, 21, 25; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 9:1-9; Revelation 9:16-19; Revelation 13:11-14. (A History of the Work of Redemption)

The prophet Daniel was shown visions of "the distant future" (Dan. 8:26), "what will happen to your people [the Jews] in the future" (Dan. 10:14), and saw concerning a fierce future ruler that "God's people will be helpless in his hands for three and a half years" (Dan. 7:25 Living Bible), so would it be wrong to point out that the Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked with the Nazis, resulting in Holocaust extermination camps for the Jews operating for three and a half years?

If the papacy's Inquisition and the Islamic invasion of Eastern and Western Europe in Luther and Calvin's day prompted them to apply Scripture as they did, who is to say that the restoration of the state of Israel, and its recapture of Jerusalem, might not have prompted them to quote Scripture concerning those events as well, had they lived to see them?

David

 

[MW]

The question to you is, if it happens, what if anything will it do to your eschatology?

Nothing. Divine revelation teaches us that there is a living temple being built of believers in Christ. Ephesians 2. 1 Peter 2. That should be the focus of our attention and affection in these last days. A dead building of merely human construction is of no consequence to the truly covenanted people of the Lord.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

In the book Four Views on Revelation, the idealist expositor, Hamstra I believe, argues precisely that, which is bad.

I haven't read Hamstra so I'm unfamiliure with his views. I am merely trying interact with what you've said. If you see a flaw in my thinking on the matter, show me what it is. Don't just say "it's bad!" Explain how it is bad and defend your argument.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't play connect the dots. The one thing I have difficulty with my premillennialism is that most premils do not see the Pope as the Man of Sin. The historic Reformed church confesses him so. (This is the Reformed teaching) Admittedly, the Jesuit in charge now fits the bill as well as anyone could image.

Part of my original response was tongue-in-cheek. On the other hand, when Jesus said discern the times, and the men of Issachar were praised for doing just that, and we have Satanic institutions today like the UN and the EU, and given the fact that global capital is highly liquid et al, I am simply not going to say, "it's a coincidence and the things in biblical prophecy are just spiritual truths with no historical relevance."

Mary and Jacob,

This kind of connecting-the-dots between prophecy and current events is inherently speculative. I Timothy 1:4 encourages us to avoid "fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification." Whatever connection we might try to make to any current event would be unproven and groundless. It could not edify and it may in fact stir up harmful disputes between brethren. While I certainly don't think you are trying to stir up an argument, it is hard to see the value in speculating about these things.

The main problem with most premillennialists is that they are futurists, at least those of the dispensationalist kind. Are historical premillennialists futurists? With futurism, all of Revelation 6-20 is future to us, and it often seems for many futurist teachers and preachers as if it's just about to happen, and "the end times", as they say, are upon us.

Every time there is e.g. war in the Middle East it seems that this is the sign once again that "the end times are upon us". Rather than learning general but substantial and sound lessons, which may be applied, about Christ's rule over history, about the progress/regress of the Church and about the enemies of the Gospel, and being fed by the Word of God, futurists move from one unprofitable and unsatisfactory crisis to another, based on particular events that are currently in the papers, and yet the "end times" never seems to arrive.

If you realise that Revelation 6-20 is not just about time future to us, but is about the whole interadventual period, you realise that the book must deal in broad principles or ideals rather than be specifically focussed on transient events like the rise of Isis, 9/11 or World War I.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Not all hist. premil are futurists in the sense you are using. The pre-Constantinian church fathers--some, anyway--were historicist historic premils.

I am aware of the amil/postmil argument that Rev 6-20 is about interadvental periods. I know it well. I think it suffers from some big internal tensions but that's beside the point here.

Ironically, I think we are closer than would otherwise appear. With the exception of the Jesuit in the Vatican--which conclusion, btw, is utterly historic Reformed--I do not see any hard connections on current events. I think the general tempo of the times equally cautions against a broadly "spiritual" hermeneutics which is incapable of making any prophetic critique of current actions.

 

[Leslie]

Mideast Beast by Joel Richardson is about the best apologetic for the relevance of current events to premil eschatology, if anyone is interested in looking at both sides of the question. He does not explain all the relevant passages, but he does explain a lot. Only time will tell whether he's right or wrong. It could be that the religion of peace fizzles and this world goes on another 10,000 years before the end comes.

 

[Peairtach]

I still don't understand.

Are those who are saying No, saying that extra-biblical history had no influence on their interpretation of particular texts e.g. Daniel's passages on the intertestamental period, or that once they had reached their clear eschatalogical conclusions from Scripture they do not let these to be overthrown by history or current events but rather interpret these in the light of their biblical eschatology?

If anyone can take the time to explain it to me, it would be very helpful.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

We naturally tend to think of prophecy in terms of prediction of future events. This is not the essential feature of biblical prophecy, although it contains a predictive element in its expectations. Prophecy arose within the context of covenantal promise. That promise concerned a people and a land. It has been fulfilled with the coming of Christ. By His coming the future kingdom of God has penetrated the present so that the people of the promise now live in the reality of things which were prophesied long ago. Yet that reality still awaits its consummation at the second coming of Christ. Hence it is called the dispensation of the fulness of times.

In this dispensation of the fulness of times all historical events are to be viewed in the light of this now/not-yet reality. History as a whole moves speedily towards the day and hour appointed of the Father. The New Testament intently looks on the appearance of the Saviour from heaven as the next revelation in the salvific program. This is the single event which believers desire for the consummation of all that has been promised.

 

[hammondjones]

It's easy to be post-mil in America after the civil war. It's harder to be post-mil after the Great War. Why? Did the Bible change? The times we live in dictate much more about popular theology than people realize.


“Hermeneutics or Zeitgeist as the Determining Factor in the History of Eschatologies?” (JETS 20 [1977]: 45–55)

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/20/20-1/20-1-pp045-055_JETS.pdf

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

It's easy to be post-mil in America after the civil war. It's harder to be post-mil after the Great War.

This speaks to a weakness common to pre and post-millennialism; they are too often drawn into the error of interpreting providence as supporting their own eschatological scheme.