Eschatological View?

[Jason of Iolkos]

Hi All! :wave:

I just wanted to take a survey of the eschatological views held by those who hold to Reformed/Calvanist theology. So vote for your favorite and see if they win! :P





Jesaiah

[Bulldog]

I am still looking at both the partial preterist and full preterist views. (full preterism is condemned as heresy by most Reformed churches today)

There are very few Reformed believers who are Pre-millennialist.


EDIT: RC Sproul has many great end times articles and such.

Also, I was recently reading the book End Times Ficiton by Partial Preterist Gary Demar which shows a Biblical critique of the Left Behind series. (and much of Dispensational Pre-millennialism) It is a very insightful book.

[Gamecock]

Hi All! :wave:

I just wanted to take a survey of the eschatological views held by those who hold to Reformed/Calvanist theology. So vote for your favorite and see if they win! :P





JesaiahPan-millennialist

It's going to pan out exactly the way God has it planned.

[Jason of Iolkos]

Pan-millennialist

It's going to pan out exactly the way God has it planned.

:doh: I knew I left something off the list........:P

[calgal]

:doh: I knew I left something off the list........:P
And what about Amillenial Partial Preterists? ;)

[jazzbird]

Hmmm....I didn't vote because I'm not precisely sure where my view fits and I don't want to screw up the poll. I am pre-mil, but definetely not dispensational. I am pre-wrath. It's my understanding that historicism believes that the papacy is the beast and all that stuff - is that right?
(This question is not to encourage an anti-catholic debate, but I just need clarification :) ).

So, anyone know if I fit into one of the categories in the poll?

[Wrigley]

And what about Amillenial Partial Preterists? ;)
Make a choice calgal. :P

[Bro. Gabriel]

What about "who cares, no one knows for sure.. Jesus will return, that's all that matters"?

[Donny_B]

I think Full Preterism can be ruled out, but all the other views are plausible in various degrees. I have mainly studied the Dispensational view (since it is the predominant one available to study), filtered by my reading of the Westminster Confession, which is historicist. Historical premillenialism is what I voted for.

[theseed]

How about panmillenialism.

It will all pan out in the end :D

[theseed]

Traditionally, I have been premillenialist. I see history supporting dispensanalism, but I'm non insistant upon it.

I am definetly not amellianialist. Jesus said he would be back and he will.

Could somebody give me links or posts the rundown on the different arguments?

[Bulldog]

I am definetly not amellianialist. Jesus said he would be back and he will.

Amellianialism does say that Christ will come again.

Maybe you're confusing it for full preterism, Chrisst's second coming is a past eveent.

[calgal]

Make a choice calgal. :P
Decisions Decisions! :pink: Amillenial it is. (But RC Sproul is right about the Partial Preterist View)

[theseed]

Amellianialism does say that Christ will come again.

Maybe you're confusing it for full preterism, Chrisst's second coming is a past eveent.
I believe in a literal Kingdom and reign of Christ.

[Bulldog]

That would make you premillennial, and rule out the other options.

Here's the Blue Letter Bible on some of the views:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.html

[theseed]

That would make you premillennial, and rule out the other options.

Here's the Blue Letter Bible on some of the views:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.html
Why can't you believe in a postmillenial literal kingdom?

[Wrigley]

Decisions Decisions! :pink: Amillenial it is. (But RC Sproul is right about the Partial Preterist View)
Ain't that just typical.

[Bulldog]

Why can't you believe in a postmillenial literal kingdom?

It's just not what postmillenialism teaches.

It doesn;t really make much sense either. Christ having a physical , 1000 year rule, and then after that haveing His second coming?

[theseed]

just not what postmillenialism teaches.

It doesn;t really make much sense either. Christ having a physical , 1000 year rule, and then after that haveing His second coming?

Never mind, I thought that Pre and post had to did with the rapture. :sigh:

I'm half asleep :sleep: :yawn:

[calgal]

Ain't that just typical.Wrigley, :sigh: To quote Miss Cornelia (Anne of Green Gables the later books): "That is JUST like a Man!" (she was a fine Canadian Presbyterian sister! ;) )

[theseed]

Dispensational Premillenialism comes closest to what I believe. But I'm very cautious about basing my theology on Dispensationalism--100% strictly and literally.

I just learned what Preterism is. I believe that many events in Revelation have occured, and will occur again but in a different way. Does this make any sense?

[Bulldog]

I believe that many events in Revelation have occured, and will occur again but in a different way. Does this make any sense?

That sounds kinda partial preterist. For example, parital preterists believ Christ came again in AD 70, but it was not the coming. A day of the Lord hapened in AD 70, but not the day of thw Lord. A judgement happened, but not the jusdghement. Is that what you believe?

[theseed]

Well, I don't believe that. I believe that things can be cyclical. The oriental view of time is cyclical rahter than linear like the Oxidental view. My ex NT professor believes that the Gospel of John is not linear but jumps back and forth. I wonder if this is true of Revelation as well. Or at least the view. Some of the Messianic Jews say that John is based on the creation week, Revelaton is also.

I see many of the passages in Rev. applying to Nero, and I believe they will apply to the Anti-Christ as well.'

So, I see some things as being kinda deja vu.

I don't think this is preterist at all though--something different.

[theseed]

Spurgeon was a post-millennialist. I see we have none here yet.

[Knight]

If I had to choose......

I'd have to say amillinealism. However, I wouldn't go to the mat on it. Eschatology is not one of my strong suits. The other position I see as plausable is historic premill. I've not studied partial preterism too much but what I've seen says that it has some merit. Dispensational premill has much popularity right now (Thanks to LaHaye and Jenkins) but I don't hold to dispensationalism. The only one I would rule out completely is full preterism.

I tend to hold to the three Biblical truths that all of these millineal views hold. (With the possible exception of full preterism)
1) Jesus Christ will return
2) Nobody knows when
3) We, as believers, are to be ready

[theseed]

1) Jesus Christ will return
2) Nobody knows when
3) We, as believers, are to be ready

:amen:

but I don't hold to dispensationalism

There is alot of things from history that shows that God works on a specific schedule. Supposedly every major event in Israel's history has happened on a Jewish holiday. And another example is that Daniel predicted the very day that Jesus would enter Jerusalem 483 years ahead of time.

Just food for thought.

[Knight]

There is alot of things from history that shows that God works on a specific schedule. Supposedly every major event in Israel's history has happened on a Jewish holiday. And another example is that Daniel predicted the very day that Jesus would enter Jerusalem 483 years ahead of time.

Just food for thought.
Granted.

However, I tend towards covenant theology. I will admit that my research into this topic is limited. It's simply not one of my fundamental interests.

Regardless, this is not the topic at hand.

[theseed]

However, I tend towards covenant theology

There are different hermenuetics used in Covenant theology.

But back to the topic at hand :)

[Knight]

There are different hermenuetics used in Covenant theology.

This much is obvious. I could say the same thing with regard to dispensationalism. ;)


But back to the topic at hand :)
Agreed....
(But you brought it up :P )

[Donny_B]

There is alot of things from history that shows that God works on a specific schedule. Supposedly every major event in Israel's history has happened on a Jewish holiday. And another example is that Daniel predicted the very day that Jesus would enter Jerusalem 483 years ahead of time.

Just food for thought.
Romans 11:25 uses a key word "until" which suggests some kind of cut-off point...

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Any thoughts on this?

[II Paradox II]

Historic Premill...

ken

[theseed]

Romans 11:25 uses a key word "until" which suggests some kind of cut-off point...

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Any thoughts on this?
Sounds like Israel's Kingdom will be restored. That's the only part of historic premill. that I disagree with.

[knee-v]

Tough call. Millenial views are separate from views such as preterism, futurism, historicism, etc. So lumping millenial views with partial preterism is mixing apples and oranges. But if I had to choose one, I'd have to go with amil. However, I have a lot of postmil tendencies. I can agree with postmil up until a certain level. That is where they say that once the Kingdom has advanced and crushed all the other kingdoms, then the world will remain in that state for some long amount of time. But I don't find that concept to be Biblical. Paul says Christ must reign "until He has put all His enemies under His feet, the last enemy being death", 1Cor 15 something-or-other. So I stick with amil as a default option.

On the other hand, I am also a partial preterist (completely separate from my millenial belief). I believe that the events that were said would happen "soon", "at hand", "quickly", in "this generation" happened exactly that way. Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, the Old Covenant economy was brought to a close, and the New Covenant was in full swing. And that all happened within the generation of the Apostles. But there were other things that did not have any kind of time indicators with them. Things that were to be in the future, but never "soon", or anything like that. For instance the resurrection. Christ said that there will be a day when it happens, but He didn't say it would be in "this generation" as He said Jerusalem's destruction would be. The judgement of the whole world (as opposed to this generation of Judeans) is another example. The Father has fixed a day on which He will judge the whole world. But He never said it would happen soon as He said other events would happen. Paul speaks of those things the same way. No time indicators. They will happen. Maybe soon, maybe in the distant future.

So that is where I stand.

[knee-v]

Just for the record, I voted partial preterist.

[theseed]

By some indications, the early disciples and Apostles were premillenniast--they beleived that Christ was comming back soon, just as many of us do. But when they got older, I guess they realized that he was not, so they wrote the Gospels down.

[theseed]

My some indications, the early disciples and Apostles were premillenniast--they beleived that Christ was comming back soon, just as many of us do. But when they got older, I guess they realized that he was not, so they wrote the Gospels down.
We see here that Jesus is not a slacker, and will be back.



2 Peter 3:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2PET+3:9&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Knight]

Good point, theseed. In fact there is ample evedince that there were some in the Thessalonian church who believed that Christ's return was not only imminent but immediate.

Their response to this belief caused some problems that Paul had to address in his letters.