Undecided on Eschatology

[buggy]

Personally, I am still unsettled in my esch. matters after having left dispensationalism. Could anyone help me out?

I find equal strengths in all three positions - Post, A, and Pre.

I am very attracted by the Post-mil vision of a future, Gospel-saturated world with the Word of God upheld by the people. However giving the state of professing Christendom worldwide and the rise of apostasy everywhere I cannot see it come true anytime. In addition, how can Post-mil and A-mil explain the fact that the state of Israel (and also mid-East conflict) is constantly making the papers?

 

[rbcbob]

This was the last piece to fall in place after coming to the doctrines of grace twenty-five years ago. I was comfortable waiting as the glory and sovereignty of God in everything was enough. I finally settled into classic Amillenialism. We do not press our members on eschatology.

 

[Roldan]

In addition, how can Post-mil and A-mil explain the fact that the state of Israel (and also mid-East conflict) is constantly making the papers?

Because actually its the dispensationalists inserting the papers into the text. This has been happening since the birth of dispensationalism, using world news to intepret scripture like some study tool. Proper interpretation of scripture will lead a person not to be so concerned with the New York times.

amillennial but prefer Realized millennium via Jay Adams, btw

 

[heartoflesh]

Personally, I am still unsettled in my esch. matters after having left dispensationalism. Could anyone help me out?

I find equal strengths in all three positions - Post, A, and Pre.

I am very attracted by the Post-mil vision of a future, Gospel-saturated world with the Word of God upheld by the people. However giving the state of professing Christendom worldwide and the rise of apostasy everywhere I cannot see it come true anytime. In addition, how can Post-mil and A-mil explain the fact that the state of Israel (and also mid-East conflict) is constantly making the papers?

All I know is that I cannot accept the premise of Premillennialism. I guess I would lean towards Amil, but only as far as I cannot accept a literal 1000 millennial age. This article really turned on a lot of lights for me... Enjoying God Ministries

 

[MLCOPE2]

Amazon.com: Case for Amillennialism, A: Understanding the End Times (9780801064357): Kim Riddlebarger: Books

Amazon.com: A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology (9780801035968): Sung Wook Chung, Craig Blomberg: Books

Amazon.com: Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (9780875523897): Keith A. Mathison: Books

 

[Scott1]

The opposite framework of dispensationalism is covenant theology, a component of reformed theology.

Here is a summary by Dr. Ligon Duncan, PCA of covenant theology you may find helpful.
What is Covenant Theology by Ligon Duncan

The millennial views within covenant theology may be much more difficult to discern with certainty, but they really are an outgrowth of covenant theology, not the reverse.

 

[Herald]

LTL, do not be in a hurry to settle for an eschatological position just for the sake of it. Like brother Bob, this area took quite some time for me to come to grips with. Read, study, and pray about it.

 

[CharlieJ]

This has been happening since the birth of dispensationalism, using world news to intepret scripture like some study tool. Proper interpretation of scripture will lead a person not to be so concerned with the New York times.

This didn't originate with Dispensationalists. Lots of Reformed, such as Jon Edwards, read the newspapers and tried to fit it into their reading of Bible prophecy. Marsden's Jonathan Edwards has a whole section on a notebook Edwards was compiling cross-referencing contemporary accounts with Bible passages. Historicism, which was a very popular way of reading Revelation before the 19th or 20th century, naturally lends itself to this. I'm not saying that the Dispensationalists are right; I'm just saying you can't shake your head at them without equally dismissing large portions of our Christian heritage.

 

[rbcbob]

This has been happening since the birth of dispensationalism, using world news to intepret scripture like some study tool. Proper interpretation of scripture will lead a person not to be so concerned with the New York times.

This didn't originate with Dispensationalists. Lots of Reformed, such as Jon Edwards, read the newspapers and tried to fit it into their reading of Bible prophecy. Marsden's Jonathan Edwards has a whole section on a notebook Edwards was compiling cross-referencing contemporary accounts with Bible passages. Historicism, which was a very popular way of reading Revelation before the 19th or 20th century, naturally lends itself to this. I'm not saying that the Dispensationalists are right; I'm just saying you can't shake your head at them without equally dismissing large portions of our Christian heritage.

Same with Hanserd Knollys in 17th century London!

 

[Roldan]

This has been happening since the birth of dispensationalism, using world news to intepret scripture like some study tool. Proper interpretation of scripture will lead a person not to be so concerned with the New York times.

This didn't originate with Dispensationalists. Lots of Reformed, such as Jon Edwards, read the newspapers and tried to fit it into their reading of Bible prophecy. Marsden's Jonathan Edwards has a whole section on a notebook Edwards was compiling cross-referencing contemporary accounts with Bible passages. Historicism, which was a very popular way of reading Revelation before the 19th or 20th century, naturally lends itself to this. I'm not saying that the Dispensationalists are right; I'm just saying you can't shake your head at them without equally dismissing large portions of our Christian heritage.

yup, thats my point. I personally lump in the dispensational hermenuetic with premillenialism for she is its mother so thats why I say dispensationalism, maybe I should just say premillenialism in general. Edwards and Marsden were premillennial so again my point.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I thought Edwards was postmil?

 

[jwright82]

I am somewhere between the Amil. and Postmil. myself but what got me to move closer to the Postmil. position was this paper by Greg Bahnsen: PT031

 

[TeachingTulip]

Pre-mil and Post-mil positions are similar, in that they look for an earthly kingdom (and temporary reign of Christ), of one fashion or another.

A-mils look to the eternal kingdom reign of Christ and the promises of new heavens and earth.

in my opinion, the former two views tend to be more literal and carnal, while the latter view is more spiritual and based upon faith in God's promises, rather than sight.

An Amillennialist . . .

 

[CharlieJ]

yup, thats my point. I personally lump in the dispensational hermenuetic with premillenialism for she is its mother so thats why I say dispensationalism, maybe I should just say premillenialism in general. Edwards and Marsden were premillennial so again my point.

I have no idea about Marsden, but Edwards was postmillennial, as were many of those who held to a historicist understanding of Revelation. The point is that there were mainstream Reformed theologians doing this and it isn't about one's millennial stance.

Welcome to the Web Site of the Historicism Research Foundation.

 

[Roldan]

yup, thats my point. I personally lump in the dispensational hermenuetic with premillenialism for she is its mother so thats why I say dispensationalism, maybe I should just say premillenialism in general. Edwards and Marsden were premillennial so again my point.

I have no idea about Marsden, but Edwards was postmillennial, as were many of those who held to a historicist understanding of Revelation. The point is that there were mainstream Reformed theologians doing this and it isn't about one's millennial stance.

so its ok to use the newspaper to interpret scripture lol....dispensationalism made this mainstream sir no matter how we want to cut it. And there are many other opinions who say Edwards was premillennial, but thats neither here nor there anyways the point is we should not insert the news into texts, period.

 

[MarieP]

This was the last piece to fall in place after coming to the doctrines of grace twenty-five years ago. I was comfortable waiting as the glory and sovereignty of God in everything was enough. I finally settled into classic Amillenialism. We do not press our members on eschatology.

THE LAMB WINS!!!!!!!!!

For the record, I'm amil, though I don't agree with some of the preterist understandings on specific prophecies. I was dispensationalist for a long time, until I read G. E. Ladd's helpful book (though he's historic premil) titled The Blessed Hope. His most powerful arguement against the dispensationalist position is the question of why there would be animal sacrifices again with a rebuilt temple. That idea is so repugnant to me now. All that was fulfilled once for all in Christ!

 

[Peairtach]

I'm postmil.

I am very attracted by the Post-mil vision of a future, Gospel-saturated world with the Word of God upheld by the people. However giving the state of professing Christendom worldwide and the rise of apostasy everywhere I cannot see it come true anytime.

This is no problem for postmils.

(a) We don't know when the world is going to be fully Christianised. It could be 50 years from now, 100 years, 500 years, 1,000 years, 2,000 years. You shouldn't interpret the Bible's promises of Gospel success in the light of what happens to be going on now. The Christianisation of the World is a gradual process that ebbs and flows. With what's going on in the Western world we could be in for a time of serious persecution, just like our brothers in China, Islamic and other countires already experience.

(b) The Holy Spirit is perfectly able to bring about postmil conditions. There just have to be lots of people in the world converted at the same time. Christ doesn't have to return to Earth to bring in the Millennium. At His Father's right hand He has all power in Heaven and on Earth. God has the power to do it. Are there any indications in the Bible that He's going to do it?

In addition, how can Post-mil and A-mil explain the fact that the state of Israel (and also mid-East conflict) is constantly making the papers?

Both postmil and amil can explain it by the fact that God in His providence has allowed the ethnic Jews to return to the Land of Israel/Palestine. Many postmils believe there will be a national conversion of the Jews at some point in the future, and some amils believe this.

They'll have different opinions on the State of Israel, as do the Jews, themselves. Believing in a national conversion of the Jews doesn't mean you have to support the Israeli government, armed forces, how the Jews retook the Land, their attitude to the Land or the Palestinians, or hold to the tenets of "Christian Zionism."

Many postmils believe that the Jews will be converted, the Arabs converted and that one day their will be peace between the Jews and Arabs. They also believe that all nations will be converted and that there will be worldwide peace.

Precisely why the existence of the State of Israel should mean that Christ should leave the realms of Glory to live in a semi re-humiliated state in an imperfectly renewed Earth, beats me? What is achieved? What is going to be achieved by a re-humiliation of Christ which is theologically totally unacceptable? How can God justify the scandal of Christ's re-humiliation!

If you go through the four views of Dispensational premil, historic premil, postmil and amil, according to basic principles of interpretation and by a process of illimination, you'll soon drop the first two.

Quote from Rhonda

in my opinion, the former two views tend to be more literal and carnal,

There's nothing carnal in believing that literally lots of people are going to be converted

 

[TeachingTulip]

There's nothing carnal in believing that literally lots of people are going to be converted

And there is no argument that "lots" (all) of the elect of God will be converted.

The disagreement is when and how.

Will many only be saved after an earthly "golden age" is established, or will all be saved prior to the promised second coming of Christ?

 

[Peairtach]

Will many only be saved after an earthly "golden age" is established, or will all be saved prior to the promised second coming of Christ?

Well both amils and postmils believe the Millennium will end when Jesus returns. I tend to call the "golden age" a "Silver Age" because there will be sin, illness and death until the Eschaton. The "Golden Age" is after the Second Advent.

I suppose we're living in a sort of "Bronze Age"

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (I Corinthians 15:25-26)

 

[TeachingTulip]

Will many only be saved after an earthly "golden age" is established, or will all be saved prior to the promised second coming of Christ?

Well both amils and postmils believe the Millennium will end when Jesus returns.

Amillennialists do not believe in a "millennium" at all.

 

[Scott1]

Will many only be saved after an earthly "golden age" is established, or will all be saved prior to the promised second coming of Christ?

Well both amils and postmils believe the Millennium will end when Jesus returns.

Amillennialists do not believe in a "millennium" at all.

Not to distract, nor advocate in the back and forth, but for those following-

Wouldn't we say amillennialism believes in a millennium, a realized, present one?

 

[Steve Curtis]

Of course amils believe in a millennium (despite the unfortunate "a-"). The millennium (or, chilia) is Scriptural, after all. The difference is that amils interpret that to mean either that it consists of the time between the death of the saint and the return of Christ or the time between the new birth (i.e., the "first resurrection") and the return of Christ. For excellent exegesis of Revelation from the amil position, Greg Beale's commentary is commendable.

 

[Manuel]

Pre-mil and Post-mil positions are similar, in that they look for an earthly kingdom (and temporary reign of Christ), of one fashion or another.

A-mils look to the eternal kingdom reign of Christ and the promises of new heavens and earth.

in my opinion, the former two views tend to be more literal and carnal, while the latter view is more spiritual and based upon faith in God's promises, rather than sight.

An Amillennialist . . .

How are the first two views more literal? Don't amillennialist believe in a literal temporary reign of Christ and a literal earthly reign of Christ as well, how is that less literal? Just trying to understand your point of view.

 

[Steve Curtis]

[/QUOTE]How are the first two views more literal? Don't amillennialist believe in a literal temporary reign of Christ and a literal earthly reign of Christ as well, how is that less literal? Just trying to understand your point of view.[/QUOTE]

Amils do not believe in a literal "temporary" reign of Christ. Rather, the return of Christ will coincide with the establishment of the (eternal) new heavens and new earth.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Tian (buggy),

I was a premil until I heard two Messianic Jewish friends talking excitedly about the alleged to-be-rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and the renewed sacrifices; I said to them, "Hey, haven't you guys ever read Hebrews?" I studied the amil position from there, and saw the sanity of it and fidelity to the Biblical data. It took me a while to come to a sound amil view on some particulars, such as the two witnesses in Rev 11 (on this, and an intro to amil exposition, check out G.K. Beale's great sermon (MP3 download), “Two Witnesses in Revelation” (⇐ link), and also the battle in Zech 14:1-4.

The Bible teaches there are only two ages, this age (or world) and the age to come. There is no third, such as a 1,000 year reign of Christ in Jerusalem before the eternal state, or a "golden" age of "Christianized" nations (outwardly conforming to the Law) where the severity of the curse will be diminished (increased longevity, predator animals at peace with their prey, etc). No, things will get worse in the world, the judgments of God will increase, and the church will come under greater and greater tribulation (persecution). Do you know that more Christians have died in the last century than in all the centuries combined since the Lord's resurrection? These fires but purify the precious faith of the saints.

The thousand years of Rev 20 — the famous millennium — is that period from the triumph of Christ over the devil, when He made a spectacle of him through the victory of the cross, till the end of the age. During this period Satan is chained / restrained from deceiving the nations (as he did before the advent of Christ) and marshaling them to attack and annihilate the church. At the end of the age he will be loosed, and will indeed deceive the nations again, and attempt to utterly eradicate the people of God from the earth, at which point the Lord will return to destroy him and vindicate His beloved people. Then the resurrection, the judgment, and the eternal state.

The Lord's "cattle upon a thousand hills" (Ps 50:10) doesn't mean literally a thousand hills, but the fullness of the world — all the hills — and all its cattle are His, even as the fullness of the entire lifespan of the NT church is signified by "a thousand years".

The Reformed Baptist pastor and teacher, Samuel Waldron, wrote a good book on this: The End Times Made Simple (⇐ link). You won't go wrong on this with Waldron.

We are living in the Millennial period. And we need to be prepared for those things that shall come to pass.

 

[Scott1]

Jerusalem Blade
....
No, things will get worse in the world, the judgments of God will increase, and the church will come under greater and greater tribulation (persecution).
....

Within amillennialism, a realized or present millennium, wouldn't we mostly say that good and evil will grow side by side, the gospel will advance, evil will advance together?

And, knowing there are some differences within amillennialism, doesn't the most classical form hold to an apostasy right at the end, before the return of Christ whereas "optimistic amillennialism" says more that the gospel triumphs over the evil that goes with it side-by-side?

 

[Spinningplates2]

Pre-mil and Post-mil positions are similar, in that they look for an earthly kingdom (and temporary reign of Christ), of one fashion or another.

A-mils look to the eternal kingdom reign of Christ and the promises of new heavens and earth.

in my opinion, the former two views tend to be more literal and carnal, while the latter view is more spiritual and based upon faith in God's promises, rather than sight.

An Amillennialist . . .

I think I have never read anything more misleading then this quote. Post-Mil, compared to Pre-mil has got to be some sort of bad joke and only shows a willingness to to attack then by study. So many great Puritans and Reformed leaders were (and are) Post-millennial that I can't let this swipe go unchallenged.

 

[Manuel]

Of course amils believe in a millennium (despite the unfortunate "a-"). The millennium (or, chilia) is Scriptural, after all. The difference is that amils interpret that to mean either that it consists of the time between the death of the saint and the return of Christ or the time between the new birth (i.e., the "first resurrection") and the return of Christ. For excellent exegesis of Revelation from the amil position, Greg Beale's commentary is commendable.

Amils do not believe in a literal "temporary" reign of Christ. Rather, the return of Christ will coincide with the establishment of the (eternal) new heavens and new earth.

I don't understand, if amillennialists believe in a Millennium like you said in post #22, and the Millennium is a temporary reign of Christ, then how come you say that amils do not believe in a literal temporary reign of Christ? Just trying to understand your point of view

 

[Bern]

Amils don't believe Christ is reigning physically on the earth, over an earthly kingdom. He is reigning in heaven. Steve (Jerusalem Blade) explained the amil position well. Whereas premils believe He will return then reign over a physical kingdom before the eternal kingdom is established.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

When I left dispensationalism years ago, I somewhat naturally gravitated to Historic Premil ala G.E. Ladd. That was satisfying for a while, but I soon found myself leaning to Amillennialism. I too found Sam Storms (Desiring God Ministries) helpful in that regard. I'm not completely settled on all matters, but Amill seems to fit the best for me.