Summary of eschatological positions

[RamistThomist]

I wasn't helpful. I was trying to be funny.

The postmillennialist position necessarily sees a long future where the gospel progressively impacts the world (Is. 9, 11, most of 40-66).

The optimistic amill sees the gospel impacting the world but holds out that Christ *might* come at any moment.

 

[Davidius]

I wasn't helpful. I was trying to be funny.

The postmillennialist position necessarily sees a long future where the gospel progressively impacts the world (Is. 9, 11, most of 40-66).

The optimistic amill sees the gospel impacting the world but holds out that Christ *might* come at any moment.

Haha sorry I didn't mean to totally not acknowledge the purpose of your comment. It was funny!

 

[JM]

As my father jokes: "Well, you can stay here then while we go see the Lord."

(A joke from a Pre-mill to the others.)

I'm not pretrib.

 

[Magma2]

I consider myself a partial preterist amillenialist as well.

Wouldn't that just be an amillenialist since they view (and I think correctly) the divisions in Revelation in a parallel progressive interpretative scheme? For what it's worth I think amillenialists, at least the ones I've read (Hokema, Engelsma primarily), have the stronger argument since this scheme better accounts for the various NT/OT prophesies concerning the end times. Other schemes aren't nearly as harmonious and those who know me know I like harmony.

Just to add to the list, as I understand it, Gordon Clark was also a historic premillenialist.

 

[Romans922]

I'm optimistic Amil.

But I was wondering if we could all agree of the following:

First, Scripture warns us that 'no man knows the times or the seasons' (Acts 1:7; Mt. 24:36ff; 1 Thess. 5:1). No man knows, or can know, the chronology of the future (This is the meaning of the Greek word chronos) nor the precise events (or timing of events) which will mark the unfolding of God's plan. Therefore, and scheme (such as that of the dispensationalists) which claims such knowledge cannot be accepted by those who believe and know the truth.

Second, Scripture clearly teaches that Christ's Kingdom is (a) already existent (Mt. 4:17; 5:3; 16:19; Mark 9:1); (b) spiritual and invisible, not worldly and material (Luke 17:20; Jn. 3:3ff; 18:36; 1 Thess. 2:12; Col 1:13); (c) everlasting, not millennial only (Dan. 2:44; 2 Pt. 1:11); (d) not the possession of Israel, from which it was taken and given to the nations (Lk. 12:32; Rev. 11:15); (e) to end, as to the present mediatorial administration, when 'he shall have delivered up the kingdom of God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power. For the must reign, till he hath put all things under his feet...and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him..." (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Then will the Kingdom appear in its final form (2 Tim. 4:1; Mt. 26:29) but it will be a continuance of the same Kingdom that now is.

Third, the Bible states that Christ's return will be (a) without warning (that is, without signs) (Mt. 24:36-39, 42-44). It is compared with the days of Noah when life went on 'as usual' until, without warning signs, the flood suddenly came. Noah's preaching was the only warning, but this was not different from the preaching of today which is the only warning of Christ's coming. Christ also used as an illustration of this truth the thief that comes without warning signs, and the lightning that shines without warning from east to west. (b) He will call all men from their graves when he comes (Jn. 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). (c) In that day the heavens and the earth as we now know them will 'pass away' because 'the elements shall melt with fervent heat' (2 Pt. 3:10ff).

Fourth, the Bible says that these are the last days (Heb. 1:2; Jn 6:39; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 2:17; 2 Ti. 3:1; 2 Pt. 3:3; 1 Jn. 2:18). As John said, 'It is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last time.' Since one apostle asys that we live in the final days, and another says that at the end of these last days the earth as we know it will pass away, we cannot hold to another period of history in the world after these days and Christ's return.

Fifth, the great apostasy cannot be wholly future since Paul said that 'the mystery of iniquity' which causes this apostasy was already at work in his day (2 Th. 2:7ff; 1 Jn. 2:18, 22; 4:3).

Sixth, no view can be correct which envisions a period of 'good-without-evil' or the separation fo the righteous from the wicked prior to the end of this age, because Jesus said, 'In the end of this age, the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity (Mt. 13:40-41; cf. Mt. 13:49).

Finally, no view can be correct which envisions Christ's present reign as terminating before 'he hath put all enemies under his feet.' 'For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15:24) and 'the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death' (v. 26). It follows that entire victory must coincide with the defeat of death by the general resurrection. There can be no complete triumph of the kingdom of Christ until world history comes to an end.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

What is the difference between an optismistic Amillenialist and a Postmillenialist?

The basic difference historically is over the nature of the kingdom and what constistutes "victory." Postmils tend to favor a physical or "Christianized" world before the return of Christ. Amils define victory as the unhindered complete harvesting of the elect. Optimistic amils simply argue there will be a lot of elect They don't believe the world will be Christianized or "gradually get better" but that strife and conflict characterize this present age until Christ returns. Both good and evil ripen together, so there is significant cultural impact by the church in this age, yet also significant opposition even until the day of Christ's return. An inadequate summary, but good enough for a message board

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I'm optimistic Amil.

But I was wondering if we could all agree of the following:

Brother,

Everyother point disobeys the first one. By saying that the dispensational view is incorrect makes the others right(see point 2-final). Therefore we can't all agree on these points.

 

[JM]

George Eldon Ladd:
What is the Kingdom of God?
The Mystery of the Kingdom
What About Israel?

John Piper:
How is the Kingdom Present?
Is the Kingdom Present or Future?
Until It Is Fulfilled in the Kingdom of God


John MacArthur:
Entering the Kingdom
The Kingdom and the World

Peace,

j

 

[Davidius]

Brother,

Everyother point disobeys the first one. By saying that the dispensational view is incorrect makes the others right(see point 2-final). Therefore we can't all agree on these points.

Dispensationalists have been known to predict exact dates and times when the "rapture" is going to take place. The points which follow #1 don't contradict it because they are the things that Jesus himself said about His return, which are not specific times, only general descriptions and indications.