The Other Premillennialism

[LittleLambofJesus]

You can do no better than the writings of George Ladd. I am Amill myself but credit where credit is due. Ladd is the champion of historic premillennialism.

Hello C G.
I read a little on him and he seems to take a little after a favorite commentator of mine, Preston Eby.
Note his remark of the "rule of God" in this article:

Restoring the Kingdom-of-God Worldview to the Church and the World (7 Steps)

Another problem contributing to the confusion that surrounds God’s kingdom is the absence of a scriptural definition.

George Eldon Ladd feels that while “New Testament scholars generally agree that the burden of Jesus’ message was the Kingdom of God . . . . The critical problem arises from the fact that Jesus nowhere defined what he meant by the phrase.”[48] As perplexing and ironic as this omission may seem, a definition by at least one biblical writer would surely have alleviated much of our modern-day confusion.

Ladd also remarked, and erroneously deduced, that “It is not recorded that anyone asked him [Jesus] what ‘the Kingdom of God’ meant. He assumed that this was a concept so familiar that it did not require definition.”[49] Ladd must have forgotten that Jesus’ presentations of the kingdom departed radically from the Jewish expectations. Jews in the 1st Century (and many Jews and Christians yet today) were/are looking for their Messiah to bring a visible and political kingdom which would overthrow the Roman/governmental authorities and elevate Israel to supremacy over all the nations (Acts 1:6). Problem is, Jesus never taught, promised, nor delivered that kind of a kingdom.

Ladd, like so many others, subscribes to the commonly accepted, short definition of the kingdom as simply “the rule of God.”[59] He ends up, however, saying more about what the kingdom is not than what it is:
The Kingdom of God cannot be reduced to the reign of God within the individual soul or modernized in terms of personal existential confrontation or dissipated to an extraworldly dream of blessed immortality.[60]
===================================
Preston Eby's extensive commentary on the KoG and KoH......

Kindgdom Bible Studies Kingdom of God Part 1

Chapter Title Page

1. The Kingdom of God 3

2. The Realm of the Kingdom of Heaven 16

3. The Realm of the Kingdom of Heaven (cont.) 30

4. Birthed into the Kingdom 44

5. Birthed into the Kingdom (cont.) 55

6. Birthed into the Kingdom (cont.) 69

7. The Beginning of the Kingdom 83

8. The Beginning of the Kingdom (cont.) 98

9. The Beginning of the Kingdom (cont.) 112

10. The Nature of the Kingdom 125

11. My Kingdom is not of this World 139

12. The Kingdom Within 153

13 The Kingdom Within (cont.) 168
======================================
THE RULE OF GOD

It is significant to note that the phrases “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” are not to be found in the Old Testament. They are strictly New Testament terms beginning with John the Baptist and Jesus. When Jesus came He did not preach a message called grace, or salvation, or justification, or sanctification, or regeneration, or even the Church. Could there be any more glorious message than the one that fell from His lips as He began His sonship ministry declaring, “The KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!” From that time forward the great teaching of the Lord centered in the truth of THE KINGDOM. His gospel was the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom of God. He only lightly touched on the other subjects which today are considered the great doctrines of the Church and then only as they related to the Kingdom. All of these things are included within the Kingdom, but the Kingdom is none of them. The Kingdom is THE RULE OF GOD. It is the DOMINION OF GOD. That is exactly what it is. And Jesus came with just that message — the revelation of the RULE OF GOD within the hearts of men, and through men, over the earth, yea, over the whole vast universe! First He must reign completely in our lives. The Kingdom of God is God in Christ in the saints governing the creation of God. The rule of God begins in the hearts of His elect.

Jesus, after His resurrection, asked Peter three times if he loved Him. He then said to him: “When you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and Another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” Commenting on these words, the Holy Spirit adds: “This Jesus said to show by what death Peter was to glorify God” (Jn. 21:18-19). The expressions when you were young and when you are old speak of two distinct periods in Peter’s life. They indicate His walk before and after entering the Kingdom. The reference to his past (when Peter was young) and to his future (when he would be old) is not a reference to age but to spiritual immaturity and maturity. Emphasis in the first statement in on the pronoun you (“you girded yourself, you walked where you would”). During this period, Peter’s walk with the Lord was a walk which centered on self — on where he wanted to go and what he wanted to do for the Lord. How impetuous was he in his desires! But the day would come when Peter, subject to Jesus as his King, would allow the Lord to do with him as He willed.

THE REALM OF

THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

There are many strange ideas around about the difference between the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven”. Carnal-minded men have long tried to make a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, as though they were two separate kingdoms. Our Lord’s instructions upon sending out the twelve were, according to Matthew, “And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat. 10:7). According to Luke, “He sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick” (Lk. 9:2). Certainly Jesus did not preach two conflicting messages at the same time! Surely He was not announcing two separate and distinct kingdoms and declaring them both to be at hand! These, and many other passages, show the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are one and the same. Yet — there is a difference! For, you see, heaven is a REALM and God is a PERSON. The Kingdom has its origin in the REALM OF HEAVEN, and in the PERSON OF GOD. The term “Kingdom of Heaven” denotes from whence (from what place, location, realm or dimension) the Kingdom proceeds, whereas the term “Kingdom of God” reveals from whom (from what person or being) the Kingdom originates. When we consider these two items, place and person, it immediately follows that as to REALM the Kingdom is out of the heavenlies, but as to PERSON the Kingdom comes from God. It is called the Kingdom OF God because it is from and by God. He is the Instigator and Head of the Kingdom. It is called the Kingdom OF Heaven because it has its inception in heaven — the invisible realm of Spirit.

 

[DavidPT]

There are 3 main approaches in answering this:

1) Preterist approach: According to this the Antichrist is Nero Caesar.

2) Historicist approach: According to this the Antichrist is one of those who persecuted the Church during history. Candidates include Diocletian Caesar, Mohammed Apostle of Islam, the Pope at time of the Reformation, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Hitler.

3) Futurist approach: According to this the coming Antichrist may be either:
a) A Jew, since Christ was a Jew, or
b) A Humanist, probably European, or
c) An endtime Pope, or
d) A Communist, probably Chinese, or
e) A Muslim, probably Turkish.

What is your take on this?

I don't agree with 1 or 2 that's for sure. I guess that places me in the 3rd category then. Between A-E I guess any of those are possible. I haven't really made up my mind one way or the other about it. There are likely other choices as well. All I know is, Option 1 and 2 can't be correct. I also read post #18. I don't see me being on board with any of those theories. But there are some things SDA's teach where I find myself agreeing with at least some of it. Nothing in post #18 I see myself agreeing with though.


I think what turned me off the most about the SDA's theories in post #18 was mainly this portion.

In contrast to those who choose to obey the "Sunday law," and therefore receive the "mark of the beast," people who observe the seventh-day Sabbath will receive the "Seal of God" (mentioned in Revelation 7:2ff.). Despite being almost overwhelmed by persecution, the people of God will be delivered by the second coming of Jesus Christ, when he returns to earth in glory.

 

[Andrewn]

SDA is historicist but they adapt certain bits in order to promote some of their theories.

Yes, they do.

 

[Andrewn]

Nothing in post #18 I see myself agreeing with though. I think what turned me off the most about the SDA's theories in post #18 was mainly this portion.

I was surprised to learn about their hostility to those who worship on Sunday, which is all Christians.

I don't agree with 1 or 2 that's for sure. I guess that places me in the 3rd category then. Between A-E I guess any of those are possible. I haven't really made up my mind one way or the other about it. There are likely other choices as well.

Yes, this is what I thought most HPM would choose.

From your study of Revelation, who will remain on earth at the end of Armageddon: good people, bad people, mixture?

 

[jgr]

There are 3 main approaches in answering this:

There's a fourth.

1 John 2:18
Little children, 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.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

According to John, antichrist is a plurality who was already present when he wrote.

 

[Andrewn]

1 John 2:18
Little children, 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.

The Catholic Encyclopedia observes that, "Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: 'Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists'."

"St. John urged against the heretics of his time that those who denied the mystery of the Incarnation were faint images of the future great Antichrist. The latter is described more fully in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, sqq., 7-10."

"Briefly, the 'day of the Lord' will be preceded by the 'man of sin' known in the Johannine Epistles as Antichrist; the 'man of sin' is preceded by 'a revolt,' or a great apostasy; this apostasy is the outcome of the 'mystery of iniquity' which already 'worketh', and which, according to St. John, shows itself here and there by faint types of Antichrist. The Apostle gives three stages in the evolution of evil: the leaven of iniquity, the great apostasy, and the man of sin."

Even though the Catholic position is Amil, they interpret the Antichrist as an end-time figure. I think this is also true of most Protestants. This raises 2 question:

1) How do Amil respond to the arguments made in posts #10 & #15.
2) Who is "the one who is now holding him back?" Most interpreters say "the Roman Empire" but how does this work?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Most people are quite familiar with dispensational Premillennialism. They may even consider it standard Christianity even though the name may be obscure to them. I'm not interested in this form of Premillennialism. I already know too much about it.

What I'm interested in learning more about is other forms of Premillennialism such as Historic Premillennialism and Adventist Premillennialism.

Dispensational premillenialism is largely a creation or fiction created in the 19th century and made popular in the 20th century as Biblical knowledge started to wane. There are historic pre-mil's who in some respects are closer to the ah-mil view with the exception of their view of the 1000 year reign of Christ. Those folks have always been few and far between as the dominant historic end times views are ah-mil and post-mil. Off the top of my head I can't think of any theologians who are pre-mil but not dispensational. There has to be one out there.

 

[jgr]

The Catholic Encyclopedia observes that, "Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: 'Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists'."

"St. John urged against the heretics of his time that those who denied the mystery of the Incarnation were faint images of the future great Antichrist. The latter is described more fully in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, sqq., 7-10."

"Briefly, the 'day of the Lord' will be preceded by the 'man of sin' known in the Johannine Epistles as Antichrist; the 'man of sin' is preceded by 'a revolt,' or a great apostasy; this apostasy is the outcome of the 'mystery of iniquity' which already 'worketh', and which, according to St. John, shows itself here and there by faint types of Antichrist. The Apostle gives three stages in the evolution of evil: the leaven of iniquity, the great apostasy, and the man of sin."

Even though the Catholic position is Amil, they interpret the Antichrist as an end-time figure. I think this is also true of most Protestants. This raises 2 question:

1) How do Amil respond to the arguments made in posts #10 & #15.
2) Who is "the one who is now holding him back?" Most interpreters say "the Roman Empire" but how does this work?

Every one of John's references to antichrist (the only references thereto in the entirety of Scripture) reiterates plurality. There is no single "The Antichrist" specifically identified anywhere in Scripture.

We do see the emergence of predominant antichrists at various times throughout history. One of the Protestant Reformation's foundational doctrines was the declaration of the apostate papacy as antichrist. This doctrine, in concert with the well-recognized "just shall live by faith", was integral and indispensable to the ultimate success of the Reformation in breaking the chains of the spiritual Dark Ages, by God's grace and mercy.

The Reformation doctrine of antichrist was in fact so effective that it spurred the apostate papacy's counter-reformation, wherein Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera was commissioned, and produced, a length commentary futurizing antichrist to the end time, in order to blunt the Reformation proclamation.

Ribera's commentary was rejected by Protestantism for some two centuries until it was embraced by dispensationalism beginning in the 19th century, in a betrayal of the Reformation and its sacrifices. It too is integral and indispensable to the survival of the dispensational genre, as well as to the continuation of papalism throughout the world.

As former Roman Catholic priest Joseph Zacchello declared in his "Secrets of Romanism", "Protestants who advocate the futuristic system are pleasing the Pope and are playing into the hands of Rome".

That said, there are many fine men and women of God within Roman Catholicism. The challenge, as is so often the case, is to recognize and separate doctrinal wheat and chaff.

 

[jgr]

Dispensational premillenialism is largely a creation or fiction created in the 19th century and made popular in the 20th century as Biblical knowledge started to wane. There are historic pre-mil's who in some respects are closer to the ah-mil view with the exception of their view of the 1000 year reign of Christ. Those folks have always been few and far between as the dominant historic end times views are ah-mil and post-mil. Off the top of my head I can't think of any theologians who are pre-mil but not dispensational. There has to be one out there.

Premil thought was common in the early post-apostolic Church, but both premil and amil coexisted amicably. Ultimately premil was abandoned because of the recognition of its roots in the carnal expectations of its predecessor, Jewish talmudic chiliasm, and the role of those expectations in the
Judaic rejection of Christ.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Premil thought was common in the early post-apostolic Church, but both premil and amil coexisted amicably. Ultimately premil was abandoned because of the recognition of its roots in the carnal expectations of its predecessor, Jewish talmudic chiliasm, and the role of those expectations in the
Judaic rejection of Christ.

That's largely correct. Many in the early church thought Christ would return in the near future. That turned out to be incorrect and believers soon abandoned the pre-mil view as a result, in addition to the reasons you cited.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Andrewn said: ↑
Most people are quite familiar with dispensational Premillennialism. They may even consider it standard Christianity even though the name may be obscure to them. I'm not interested in this form of Premillennialism. I already know too much about it.

What I'm interested in learning more about is other forms of Premillennialism such as Historic Premillennialism and Adventist Premillennialism.

Redwingfan9 said: ↑
Dispensational premillenialism is largely a creation or fiction created in the 19th century and made popular in the 20th century as Biblical knowledge started to wane. There are historic pre-mil's who in some respects are closer to the ah-mil view with the exception of their view of the 1000 year reign of Christ. Those folks have always been few and far between as the dominant historic end times views are ah-mil and post-mil. Off the top of my head I can't think of any theologians who are pre-mil but not dispensational. There has to be one out there.

jgr said: ↑
Premil thought was common in the early post-apostolic Church, but both premil and amil coexisted amicably. Ultimately premil was abandoned because of the recognition of its roots in the carnal expectations of its predecessor, Jewish talmudic chiliasm, and the role of those expectations in the
Judaic rejection of Christ.

That's largely correct. Many in the early church thought Christ would return in the near future. That turned out to be incorrect and believers soon abandoned the pre-mil view as a result, in addition to the reasons you cited.

According to James' epistle to the Jews, the "parousia" was nigh at hand

2 "Parousias" according to Partial Preterism......

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke's Temple/Jerusalem Discourses harmonized- Poll Thread

Matthew 24:3
Yet of Him sitting on the Mount of the Olives, the Disciples came toward to Him according to own saying "be telling to us!
when shall these be being?
and what the sign of Thy parousia<3952> and consummation<4930> of the Age?

Luke 21:31
Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming
ye are knowing that nigh/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

Do you think James meant to imply to the 1st century Jews this would occur 2000 or more yrs later?

James 5:8
be patient! also stand-fast the hearts of ye,
that the Parousia <3952> of the Lord has-neared/hggiken <1448> (5758);
=======================================
I ran across this commentary a short while ago and what I found extremely interesting was his view on the Parousia associated with the arrival of the Kingdom of God in 70ad as shown in Luke 21:31...........

The Preterist Archive of Realized Eschatology

Hugo Grotius Study Archive

He considers that there are no grounds for expecting the Lord’s personal, visible presence on earth, but rather a presence of the Spirit and its power in his ordinances with his saints living on earth

Hugo Grotius
1583 – 1645
FIRST PROTESTANT TO ADOPT MODERN PRETERIST THEOLOGY

“Christ, if I am capable of discerning any thing, distinctly answers two distinct questions. – The coming of Christ many do not distinguish from the end of the world, being, I apprehend, deceived by the ambiguity of the word; for it is most certain, that the word parousia [or coming] has a diversity of acceptation. –
here interpret it, not of the Judgment, but of THE KINGDOM of the Messiah.”

Grotius Believed in the First-Century Return Of Christ

Although most famous for his theories of natural law, Grotius was also considered to be a great theologian. While occasionally writing about Christianity and religion, his intention for law was to write of it as independent of religious opinions.

Dividing Line Between Destruction of Jerusalem and General Judgment in the Olivet Discourse: Matthew 24:36

(On Matthew 12:31)
“This form of speech is a common Hebraism: the Jews often said, this shall be, and that shall not be; not intending however to affirm absolutely that the first should be, but merely to show that the last was much more unlikely or difficult, than the first. The sense, is this: any crime which may be committed, even all calumnies, (or blasphemies,) which hold the first rank among crimes, may be forgiven more readily than the calumny, (or blasphemy,) against the Spirit of God. See a similar comparison, 1 Sam. ii. 25.’ Annot. in. loc.)

(On Matthew 12:43)
“Christ appears to have had reference to the character of the Jewish people, at the two periods of their captivity in Babylon, and their destruction by Titus. Before their captivity, the people were exceedingly wicked, as may be seen in the Prophets ; during their exile many began to reform, and under a superintending Providence, returned to their native land. But in the days of the Asmonaeans, having again plunged into excessive wickedness, they added to their other crimes, a contempt of the Messiah, who came to them with a message of. mercy, and exercising miraculous power. Having done this, they were abandoned by God, and became the most wicked of all men, as Josephus has described them in his history of their last days.” (Annot. in loc.)

(On Matthew 24:3)
“Christ, if I am capable of discerning any thing, distinctly answers two distinct questions. – The coming of Christ many do not distinguish from the end of the world, being, I apprehend, deceived by the ambiguity of the word; for it is most certain, that the word parousia [or coming] has a diversity of acceptation. – I here interpret it, not of the Judgment, but of THE KINGDOM of the Messiah.” (Matt. xxiv. 3.)

(On Matthew 24:6-7)
“Christ declares, that greater disturbances than those which happened under Caligula, should fall out in the latter times of Claudius, and in the reign of Nero. That of ‘nation against nation’ portended the divinations, insurrections, and mutual slaughter of the Jews and those of other nations, who dwelt in the same cities together; as particularly at Caesarea,”

Richard Baxter (1615-1691)
“I must in Gratitude profess that I have learnt more from Grotius then from almost any Writer that ever I read.” (Calendar I, no. 234 n.1)

J.P. Dabney (1829)
Matthew 10 “23. Till the Son of man be come : Le Clerc supposes that this coming, in the present instance, can only well be referred to the destruction of the Jewish state and of Jerusalem ; and so also Whitby. Grotius would understand it of the full effusion of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost ; while Priestley, less naturally and probably than either, applies it to Christ’s second coming, to raise the dead and judge the world. For this explication, he assigns no reasons.” (Annotations on the New Testament: compiled from the best critical authorities, p. 18)

Matthew 16: “28. Coming to his kingdom : so Wakefield. ” Or, — coming to reign, meaning probably till they shall see the Christian religion established in the world.” Mss. Notes. See Note on Ch. x. 7- This coming of Christ, however, is very variously understood. Hammond refers it to the great destruction of Jerusalem (as in Matt. xxiv. 3) ; Whitby, to the last day, from the similarity of the language used, to that of Matt. xxv. 31; 2 Thes. i. 7 ; Matt. xiii. 41. Grotius supposes it to signify the first manifestation of Christ’s power, by his resurrection, ascension, and sending the Holy Spirit, which our Lord declares would speedily take place. It is the common opinion of critics, that in the minds of the disciples, the destruction of the Jewish state and the final judgment were frequently conjoined, from the near resemblance in the language used by our Saviour, in respect to both. ” (ibid, p. 28)

Philip Doddridge
“Grotius has done more to illustrate the Scriptures, by what is generally called profane learning, than perhaps almost all the other commentators put together ; nevertheless, he too often gives up prophecies, which, in their original sense, relate to the Messiah His notes on some texts are large and learned dissertations, which might have profitably been published by themselves.” (Lectures on Preaching, 5th vol, p. 471)

Robert Fleming
“After I had finished the foregoing discourse [i.e., “Apocalyptical Key” (1701)] and that all the sheets were almost printed, I was earnestly urged by a friend to say something to secure the foundation I go upon: especially because the learning of Grotius and Dr. Hammond had influenced many to follow another way of interpreting the Revelation, as the reputation of Mr. Baxter had swayed others to think well of the same. And when I urged that Dr. More, in his Mystery of Iniquity, and Dr. Cressener, in his Demonstration of the First Principles of the Protestant Interpretations of the Apocalypse, had done this sufficiently already; he replied, that these books were both voluminous and dark, and not easy to be purchased by every one; and that, therefore, some short account of this matter at this time seemed to be necessary. I urged many things against this, as, hat this advice came too late and that, should I contract never so much, it would swell this part of my book too much to keep a due proportion with the other discourses; and, indeed, make the whole too bulky. But after all, importunity; and the respect I bore my friend, prevailed with me to say something to all those things that he thought I ought to premise. Therefore, not to spend any longer time in giving the reasons why I did not speak to these things before in their proper place, or why I do so now, I shall give my thoughts of this book, and the first principles of the right interpretation of it, in some propositions, which do gradually lay the foundation of what I advanced before.” (Postscript, Apocalyptical Key)

========================

Luke 21:31Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming
ye are knowing that nigh/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/tablecontents.htm

Kindgdom Bible Studies Kingdom of God Part 1
The Kingdom of God
Book One of 4

THE RULE OF GOD
It is significant to note that the phrases “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” are not to be found in the Old Testament. They are strictly New Testament terms beginning with John the Baptist and Jesus. When Jesus came He did not preach a message called grace, or salvation, or justification, or sanctification, or regeneration, or even the Church. Could there be any more glorious message than the one that fell from His lips as He began His sonship ministry declaring, “The KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!”
There are many strange ideas around about the difference between the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven”. It has been taught that the Kingdom of God is spiritual and heavenly, whereas the Kingdom of Heaven is temporal and earthly, and that the two cannot be mixed.
==================
Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

1. The Kingdom of God 3

2. The Realm of the Kingdom of Heaven 16

3. The Realm of the Kingdom of Heaven (cont.) 30

4. Birthed into the Kingdom 44

5. Birthed into the Kingdom (cont.) 55

6. Birthed into the Kingdom (cont.) 69

7. The Beginning of the Kingdom 83

8. The Beginning of the Kingdom (cont.) 98

9. The Beginning of the Kingdom (cont.) 112

10. The Nature of the Kingdom 125

11. My Kingdom is not of this World 139
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (Jn. 18:36).

The Kingdom of God is not of this world. The Kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy, in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17).
12. The Kingdom Within 153

13 The Kingdom Within (cont.) 168

 

[DavidPT]

There are historic pre-mil's who in some respects are closer to the ah-mil view with the exception of their view of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

I knew another Amil on a another board who was always claiming that. Why can't it be the other way around instead? Why not this instead---There are amils who in some respects are closer to the historic pre-mil's view with the exception of their view of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I knew another Amil on a another board who was always claiming that. Why can't it be the other way around instead? Why not this instead---There are amils who in some respects are closer to the historic pre-mil's view with the exception of their view of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

Because at the end of the day pre-mil has come to mean something completely different today than it did 500 years ago. Beyond that the ah-mil and post-mil views are more closely related than even the historic pre-mil position, specifically their views on the 1000 year reign. That's come to mean more today than it used to. I view ah-mil position as being negative, which is perfect for the dour dutchmen who believe it. I'm post-mil, we're the only positive ones when it comes to end times.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm post-mil, we're the only positive ones when it comes to end times.

I am positive things are going to get worse, based on the Book of Revelation.

.

 

[jgr]

2) Who is "the one who is now holding him back?" Most interpreters say "the Roman Empire" but how does this work?

It was not until the dissolution of the imperial Roman empire that the papal Roman empire began to emerge. Until that time, the former was holding back the latter.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I am positive things are going to get worse, based on the Book of Revelation.

.

I'm positive that the great commission that Jesus told us about will be fulfilled and when he returns it will be victorious with the whole world believing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm positive that the great commission that Jesus told us about will be fulfilled and when he returns it will be victorious with the whole world believing.

Good. This ^^^^ does not contradict this (the quote below)...
Note also that the great commission was fulfilled, exactly as written in God's Word.

I am positive things are going to get worse, based on the Book of Revelation. ...
.

Yes, it is obvious. Even from history, watching with understanding God Gives, what mankind has done, getting more and more wicked and evil growing without bounds almost, as written.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Good. This ^^^^ does not contradict this (the quote below)...
Note also that the great commission was fulfilled, exactly as written in God's Word.

Yes, it is obvious. Even from history, watching with understanding God Gives, what mankind has done, getting more and more wicked and evil growing without bounds almost, as written.

There's no more wickedness today than there was 2000 years ago. The Roman Empire was incredibly evil, filled with sexual deviancy, murder (particularly of babies) and drunken debauchery. There's precious little difference between them and us, don't kid yourself about modernity being more sophisticated. We aren't.

The great commission is being fulfilled in our lives and will be fulfilled in its entirety when all of God's elect are saved. At that point Christ will return.

 

[Andrewn]

Dispensational premillenialism is largely a creation or fiction created in the 19th century and made popular in the 20th century as Biblical knowledge started to wane.

Yes, indeed.

I'm post-mil, we're the only positive ones when it comes to end times.

"John Jefferson Davis argues that it was the dominant view in the nineteenth century, but was eclipsed by the other millennial positions by the end of World War I due to the 'pessimism and disillusionment engendered by wartime conditions'." I didn't think there were any Postmil believers left. Glad you're here.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Yes, indeed.


"John Jefferson Davis argues that it was the dominant view in the nineteenth century, but was eclipsed by the other millennial positions by the end of World War I due to the 'pessimism and disillusionment engendered by wartime conditions'." I didn't think there were any Postmil believers left. Glad you're here.

I agree that post-mil fell out of favor after WWI. We're still around though, a lot of reformed presbyterians remain post-mil.