What's your Eschatological Position??

[Anselm]

I'm new here... I have always been a dispensational pre-millennialist but have recently (within the last year or so) been leaning toward either amillennialism or historic premillennialism (wither pre-wrath or post-trib).

 

[LawrenceU]

I have taken to reading my Bible with newspaper in hand. Wait, I don't get a newspaper. I have no hope of being able to tell what is happening. I have no chance of properly interpreting Scripture.

Man, I'm glad I was never a dispensationalist.

Not one to stereotype, eh?


Premil and pantrib who sees a future for ethnic Israel and subscribes to Tabletalk, but no newspapers. So much for stereotypes...

Hey man, just kidding around.

 

[Reluctantly Reforming]

Beer-drinking partial-pre amillenialist who sometimes takes longing glances over the wall at postmil. But briefly, briefly.

Strangely, this wasn't one of the options on the poll.

 

[Jon Peters]

I'm a recovering Post-Mil guy. Amil now.

 

[Anselm]

I have taken to reading my Bible with newspaper in hand. Wait, I don't get a newspaper. I have no hope of being able to tell what is happening. I have no chance of properly interpreting Scripture.

Man, I'm glad I was never a dispensationalist.

Not one to stereotype, eh?


Premil and pantrib who sees a future for ethnic Israel and subscribes to Tabletalk, but no newspapers. So much for stereotypes...

Pan-trib... does that mean believers are raptured throughout the tribulation? I've not heard the term pan-trib before.

 

[Rich Koster]

I voted for Barac...er, Nicolae Carpathia.

 

[Damon Rambo]

hmm, i guess i can't harmonize total depravity and 1,000 years of okey dokieness together...

There is no Total Depravity (in the Millennium). We have been "Changed" in the twinkling of an eye...

Historic Pre-Mill. I am just too much of a literalist to take a a-mill position, and since Jesus said things would get worse, I cannot take a post mill position. However, the pre-trib rapture is a work of fantasy.

So I take the safe bet, and side with the majority of the Church for the last 2,000 years...

 

[diverumve]

why so many postmills? ...

Couldn't resist this one...because, here, on the Puritanboard, so many of us read our Bibles.

I believe the Postmillennial view to be correct because it gives a proper view of the relationship of the millennium and current society. Both calvin and Knox had Bible based societies in their day after the Reformation had taken place. and even though a lot of society has fallen away I believe this is because the church is coming under discipline for not preaching the gospel and running after lies. I believe God will bring revival through the preaching of the Gospel by the remnant. all we need to do is get away from the scandalous, unrepentant individuals and let God's judgment come upon them in our society. that means taking our children out of the government school system (if we have them in there), applying God's Law to our families first then to the church, then to society through God's Justice department (AKA the civil magistrate), teaching every area of life according to the Scriptures (that includes creation, the fall, ecclesiology etc...), and continuing to take dominion over the earth. http://www.puritanboard.com/images/smilies/detective.gif

-----Added 5/27/2009 at 12:43:43 EST-----

hmm, i guess i can't harmonize total depravity and 1,000 years of okey dokieness together...

There is no Total Depravity (in the Millennium). We have been "Changed" in the twinkling of an eye...

Historic Pre-Mill. I am just too much of a literalist to take a a-mill position, and since Jesus said things would get worse, I cannot take a post mill position. However, the pre-trib rapture is a work of fantasy.

So I take the safe bet, and side with the majority of the Church for the last 2,000 years...

brother I used to hold a premil position, but now I am a partial preterist postmillennialist because the "bad times" would be right before and during the tribulation. the tribulation as spoken of in daniel 9 was the end of the Old covenant ceremonial age and judgment on the jews for apostasy. after ward the world was getting better suggesting optimistic view. the church has always had its blunders but the world isn't getting worse its getting better but that may be just slowing down for a time until the church repents and continues its mission. if they want a solution to this apostasy of the culture just follow the general equity of the case Laws of the old testament and that problem would be solved.

 

[William Price]

Partial preterist/Amill here.

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 07:04:32 EST-----

You guys are ALL too late! Rayford Steele told me that you've been left behind!

That's where I left those!

 

[Jake]

I've been taught PreTrib PreMil growing up, but I'm leaning toward Postmil. However, I don't have a good understanding yet.

 

[timmopussycat]

Amil
Who is Nicolaie Carpathia?

 

[William Price]

Amil
Who is Nicolaie Carpathia?

The fictional antichrist in the Left Behind series of fiction novels.

 

[caoclan]

Amil partial preterist.

 

[The Mexican Puritan]

Who can say? No one knows for sure. Just be ready for His return.

 

[Grimmson]

So I take the safe bet, and side with the majority of the Church for the last 2,000 years...

I'm his. pre-mil as well, but the majority view of the church I think my be al-mil. Correct me please if am wrong.

 

[steven-nemes]

I figure this would be a good time to advertise my attempt at opening a blog: click here

I invite pre-mills to consider one objection and give a response to the "problem of evil" which I have written about above, which I find to be destructive to any conceptions of a premillennial return of Christ.

 

[caoclan]

I'm tellin' ya folks, everyone's current eschatological position is somewhere before the end.

Not true for the hyper-preterist!

 

[Damon Rambo]

why so many postmills? ...

Couldn't resist this one...because, here, on the Puritanboard, so many of us read our Bibles.

I believe the Postmillennial view to be correct because it gives a proper view of the relationship of the millennium and current society. Both calvin and Knox had Bible based societies in their day after the Reformation had taken place. and even though a lot of society has fallen away I believe this is because the church is coming under discipline for not preaching the gospel and running after lies. I believe God will bring revival through the preaching of the Gospel by the remnant. all we need to do is get away from the scandalous, unrepentant individuals and let God's judgment come upon them in our society. that means taking our children out of the government school system (if we have them in there), applying God's Law to our families first then to the church, then to society through God's Justice department (AKA the civil magistrate), teaching every area of life according to the Scriptures (that includes creation, the fall, ecclesiology etc...), and continuing to take dominion over the earth. http://www.puritanboard.com/images/smilies/detective.gif

-----Added 5/27/2009 at 12:43:43 EST-----

hmm, i guess i can't harmonize total depravity and 1,000 years of okey dokieness together...

There is no Total Depravity (in the Millennium). We have been "Changed" in the twinkling of an eye...

Historic Pre-Mill. I am just too much of a literalist to take a a-mill position, and since Jesus said things would get worse, I cannot take a post mill position. However, the pre-trib rapture is a work of fantasy.

So I take the safe bet, and side with the majority of the Church for the last 2,000 years...

brother I used to hold a premil position, but now I am a partial preterist postmillennialist because the "bad times" would be right before and during the tribulation. the tribulation as spoken of in daniel 9 was the end of the Old covenant ceremonial age and judgment on the jews for apostasy. after ward the world was getting better suggesting optimistic view. the church has always had its blunders but the world isn't getting worse its getting better but that may be just slowing down for a time until the church repents and continues its mission. if they want a solution to this apostasy of the culture just follow the general equity of the case Laws of the old testament and that problem would be solved.

Getting better? What Earth are you living on, bro? More than half the people ever martyred for the Christian faith, have been killed just in the last two hundred years.

Things have gotten a LOT worse. There are dictators in the last two hundred years, that have killed FAR more Christians than Nero or Domitian or any of the other supposed "anti-christs".

-----Added 6/27/2009 at 04:39:39 EST-----

So I take the safe bet, and side with the majority of the Church for the last 2,000 years...

I'm his. pre-mil as well, but the majority view of the church I think my be al-mil. Correct me please if am wrong.

You are wrong. Why do you think they call it "Historic" premillennialism? The early Church fathers were premillennial, post tribulationists (Christ will come after the great tribulation, to set up the literal 1000 year reign).

Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Polycarp, and Papias, are all people who explicitly held these views (Polycarp, from the writings of Ireneaus). This view dominated the first 350 years of Christianity.

Augustine was the first to come up with Amillennialism (or more properly, arrange and express the view of Tyconius). In 430, the premillennial position was banned: by this time, though, Christianity was already beginning to be in bondage to the papacy. So, in my opinion, the next 1000 years of Christianity does not count, at least the "official" church, anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how you see it, historic premillennialism was the original, and oldest view.

 

[Grimmson]

Augustine was the first to come up with Amillennialism (or more properly, arrange and express the view of Tyconius). In 430, the premillennial position was banned: by this time, though, Christianity was already beginning to be in bondage to the papacy. So, in my opinion, the next 1000 years of Christianity does not count, at least the "official" church, anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how you see it, historic premillennialism was the original, and oldest view.

There were christians during the last 1000 years of the church, so I think it should count. Clement of Alexandria and Origen denied the historic premillennialism position I think and if memory serves there were different variants of the premillennialism position by the church fathers. The rise of the historic premillennialism and popularity as we see it today was a response against the dispensationalism of the late 19 century, even though we can find baptists like John Gil in support of it much earlier. So we must consider the majority view of reformation was Amillennialism historically, from Luther and his denomation to Calvin when making our claim.

I am not saying I disagree with your position on being historical premillennialists, but I do not think we call our position historically the majority view and at the same time look at the church fathers in complete agreement on the issue at hand.

 

[he beholds]

I would have to say that I am sort of a partial-preterist/Amil. I believe most of the prophecy in the NT pertained to the first century audience and Revelation was probably written prior to the destruction of the Temple. I also believe that all of the "Lion with lamb" verses pertain to the time when creation has been restored back to its original glory, after the resurrection.

That sounds like what I believe.
I would have voted "a-mil" but what is partial-preterist???
I know it is still possible, but the three and a half good years followed by three and a half bad years, then Christ returning and taking the believers but leaving the unbelievers and giving them 1000 years to come to him sounds very science-fictiony to me. (Maybe because it has become so in our culture, so I am not saying that this means it can't be true.)

I also wonder about it taking people 1000 years to come to Christ when God predestines them. It certainly could best glorify him to take 1000 years, but it doesn't make sense in my little head. Perhaps all I know of the position is hearsay of Nostradamus from standing in the grocery store check-out line too long, and I don't really understand the position.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Augustine was the first to come up with Amillennialism (or more properly, arrange and express the view of Tyconius). In 430, the premillennial position was banned: by this time, though, Christianity was already beginning to be in bondage to the papacy. So, in my opinion, the next 1000 years of Christianity does not count, at least the "official" church, anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how you see it, historic premillennialism was the original, and oldest view.

There were christians during the last 1000 years of the church, so I think it should count.

The Roman Catholic Papists were the ones doing the writing. So what position the "Christians" held, is up for debate.

 

[christianhope]

Historic Postmill here thanks to Patrick Fairbairn's "The interpretation of prophecy"

 

[Grimmson]

Augustine was the first to come up with Amillennialism (or more properly, arrange and express the view of Tyconius). In 430, the premillennial position was banned: by this time, though, Christianity was already beginning to be in bondage to the papacy. So, in my opinion, the next 1000 years of Christianity does not count, at least the "official" church, anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how you see it, historic premillennialism was the original, and oldest view.

The Roman Catholic Papists were the ones doing the writing. So what position the "Christians" held, is up for debate.

You cannot blame Rome on this one, and I am most assurely anti-romanist. Amillennialism is the dominat view taken not just by the West(Rome), but also the East with the Eastern Orthodox churches( regardless if their Greek, Russian, Syrian, Armenian, and I think also Coptic even though their not techically a part the Eastern Orthodox Churches).

In fact this view of church history, if you were to be consistent negelecting the next 1000 years of the church and their theology as whole, would lead you to hold a Alexandrian text- type codex or proto version there of versuses the Byzantine text type. Thus affecting the TR and to some degree The NA27. I am just showing how your view of church history also affects are theology and transmission of the Bible that we have today. Therefore let us not be blaming Rome for the Amillennialism posistion and instead bring up our evidence biblically for the case there of for historic premillennialism. We must be careful how we use history becaue the premillennialism of our church fathers did vary, so we cannot just go back and claim a standard universal position; assuming we want to be true to the truth that we proclaim.

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

What's your eschatological position?

Historic Amillennial.

 

[Grimmson]

That sounds like what I believe.
I would have voted "a-mil" but what is partial-preterist???
I know it is still possible, but the three and a half good years followed by three and a half bad years, then Christ returning and taking the believers but leaving the unbelievers and giving them 1000 years to come to him sounds very science-fictiony to me. (Maybe because it has become so in our culture, so I am not saying that this means it can't be true.)

This response is for Jessi, a.k.a. He Beholds, and for anyone else with a similar question. I define partial preterism as an eschatological view that looks at most of the prophesy in the New Testament and some of the Old as being fulfilled by the fall of the Second Temple. The main difference with full preterism on this point however is in regards to the future coming of Christ, which full preterists claim has already been fulfilled along with his final judgment that is ongoing after the fall of Jerusalem. It is for this reason we can still look at the partial position as being orthodox; however I want to add that that I have ran across some who claim to be partial and holds to a two Second Comings of Christ, which makes me scratch my head. The first being at 70AD, and not during the delivery of the Apocalypse of John(Revelations). The second being at another future coming. R.C. Sproul is a partial preterists, but I do not know his view regarding this partial variation.

If you want to read why I do not think Revelations was written prior to 70 AD, please look at my postings on the link below:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/when-revelation-written-49760/

Now I think there some confusion on the Millennium or the 1000 years, which makes sense because of the three main varying views here. I myself as I have already indicated am a historical pre-mil. Preterists typically fall under the Amillennial or postmillennial view. I personally do not know where to put the full perterist camp but to the amillennial view because of the present reign of Christ based on the definition given earlier; however their denial of a physical resurrection or transformation of the body after death would place some strain on most who hold to a Amillennialists position.

I also wonder about it taking people 1000 years to come to Christ when God predestines them. It certainly could best glorify him to take 1000 years, but it doesn't make sense in my little head. Perhaps all I know of the position is hearsay of Nostradamus from standing in the grocery store check-out line too long, and I don't really understand the position.

Your right , that does sound fishy, you must recognize that it is only the premillennium view that looks at the 1000 year reign as literal and not the others. 2 Peter 2:9, a very common passage to take out of context, suggests why Christ has not come yet and that is so none of his people, none of us, will perish.God timing is God timing, he has ordained the ends and the means, if it takes 1000 years then so be it. But let us now move to defining Historical premillennialism with the dispensational which I am sure you are familiar with. First concerning the rapture, His. Pre-mils hold to a post-trib categorically; unlike those of a dispensational perspective which vary as seen in their main difference of course between the Christian and Israel distinctions or categories that are made of the positions. Both sides hold to a rapture, but in the His. case it preceeds and is followed up by Christ's 1000 year reign and those within the rapture are not just the living saints, but also the dead who will reign with him. At this stage there is a mingling of sorts with the present and eternal stage or era. Also there will be a literal gathering in the millennial kingdom until the final rebellion and defeat of Satan.

Hopefully, this has answered your questioned. Continue to ask on this blog or email me if you want more details on these questions.

 

[he beholds]

I do have one quick (probably dumb) question...Are people alive for 1000 years each (never dying in that time) or is history re-started for another 1000 years? From my very limited understanding, I've assumed that each person lives for 1000 years.

Also, is Christ living on earth with the unbelievers (whilst the rapture has taken the saints)? What does he do for those 1000 years, and what do the unbelievers do? Live with jobs and families, etc? Or try to fight Christ with Satan? Sorry for the great ignorance.

 

[BoldBeliever]

My position is not mentioned. I'm a Last Day Adventist. Jesus will come on the Last Day, whenever that day is. (OK, technically, I'm post-millennial and post-Gog and Magog, but that won't fit, LOL.

 

[Southern Twang]

Partial-preterist, postmillennial

 

[Bald_Brother]

Historic Amil, with some post-mil leanings.

 

[Mayflower]

Just changed from historic-postmillennial to Partial-preterist, postmillennial !