Question on Historic (post-trib) Premillennialism

[DMcFadden]

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward]

Jesus King

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

Isaiah 24:21ff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DMcFadden]

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

 

[Toasty]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

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

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

Thanks for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.

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

 

[Captain Picard]

Postmils be over here like

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.

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

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

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.

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

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

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

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

I am currently engaged in a project on how mutations withing 3rd and 4th century Christian Neo-Platonism allows us an apologetics against nihilism. Premil discussions are far down on my list.

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture overrides personal opinion or commentary.

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

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

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

I can't remember the last time, if ever, that someone has smeared this much red ink on the board. Every post you've ever made to this board is on the subject of eschatology. If that's any indication, it reflects a monomaniacal fixation on this subject. Nobody has an obligation to to engage in debate with a man who appears to have an axe to grind, especially one who argues in such a tendentious fashion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Or challenge Paul Henebury to a debate.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Or challenge Paul Henebury to a debate.

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Or challenge Paul Henebury to a debate.

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

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

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

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

 

[Edward]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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