Eschatalogical views and the question of history

[dms1972]

I've been reading about these different eschatological views, I was going to ask for a summary of the main ones, but I know the gist of them, and in any case there seems to be variations on each.

I remember saying to someone about a church I was going to attend and they said to me "Oh...They believe in Pre-wrath" Well the main eschatological position I was exposed to during my teens was Pre-trib., Pre-millenialism. So maybe they thought it might be a shock to me to sit under Pre-wrath teaching. But in other churches I have been to I can discern no clear position - except one which seemed like the Pastor was Preterist in one of his sermons. I explored some of the others views as I got older, such as Post-millenialism and Protestant Historicism. My issue with some of these views, are that they seem to interpret the seven years literally. And are the four horse men not symbolical of events that have taken place all through history - such as the two World Wars, the famines in Africa?

In addition to this as can be seen occasionally on these threads the focus can become too much on Anti-Christ, rather than on the Person of Jesus Christ. I think Anti-christ is a spirit or a principality of evil. Even in the churches I believe this can be felt from time to time.

Full-preterism seems to deny the Christian Hope, and collapses into a sort of christianised secularism. If I am mistaken about what Full-preterism teaches please inform me of what it believes about the Resurrection? And what this Scripture refers to :

"They have left the path of truth, claiming that the resurrection of the dead has already occurred; in this way, they have turned some people away from the faith." 2 Timothy 2:18 (NLV)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I tend to look at history overall as a prophetic fulfillment of the seven days of creation, and church history seems to follow an allegorical version of the history of Israel and Judah.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I've been reading about these different eschatological views, I was going to ask for a summary of the main ones, but I know the gist of them, and in any case there seems to be variations on each.

I remember saying to someone about a church I was going to attend and they said to me "Oh...They believe in Pre-wrath" Well the main eschatological position I was exposed to during my teens was Pre-trib., Pre-millenialism. So maybe they thought it might be a shock to me to sit under Pre-wrath teaching. But in other churches I have been to I can discern no clear position - except one which seemed like the Pastor was Preterist in one of his sermons. I explored some of the others views as I got older, such as Post-millenialism and Protestant Historicism. My issue with some of these views, are that they seem to interpret the seven years literally. And are the four horse men not symbolical of events that have taken place all through history - such as the two World Wars, the famines in Africa?

In addition to this as can be seen occasionally on these threads the focus can become too much on Anti-Christ, rather than on the Person of Jesus Christ. I think Anti-christ is a spirit or a principality of evil. Even in the churches I believe this can be felt from time to time.

Full-preterism seems to deny the Christian Hope, and collapses into a sort of christianised secularism. If I am mistaken about what Full-preterism teaches please inform me of what it believes about the Resurrection? And what this Scriptures refers to :

"They have left the path of truth, claiming that the resurrection of the dead has already occurred; in this way, they have turned some people away from the faith." 2 Timothy 2:18 (NLV)

Full Preterism claims the second coming has already passed in 70AD. Resurrection, is the same as a non- Preterist.
Blessings

 

[RandyPNW]

I've been reading about these different eschatological views, I was going to ask for a summary of the main ones, but I know the gist of them, and in any case there seems to be variations on each.

Yes, I've held two or more of these views at different times over my decades of study in eschatology. Today, I hold some unique views because I've objectively looked at the strong points of each view, and have borrowed from each of them. To some, I have a patchwork of views. But I'm pretty satisfied about where I've come out.

I remember saying to someone about a church I was going to attend and they said to me "Oh...They believe in Pre-wrath" Well the main eschatological position I was exposed to during my teens was Pre-trib., Pre-millenialism. So maybe they thought it might be a shock to me to sit under Pre-wrath teaching.

I was raised in a rather dry Lutheran Church, and didn't even realize there was any position other than Amillennialism. Not a thing about Pretribism.

I did read my 1st commentary on Revelation by a scholar named Lenski. He used a lot of symbolism, though now I think Revelation does key in on a specific time late in history. On the other hand, the book of Revelation was supposed to provide principles for living in all ages, since the endtimes tend to be in similar waves throughout.

But in other churches I have been to I can discern no clear position - except one which seemed like the Pastor was Preterist in one of his sermons.

I do borrow from Partial Preterism the notion that the main focus of the Olivet Discourse was on Jesus' generation. But unlike the PPs I believe the Olivet Discourse continues to predict Great Tribulation for the Jewish People throughout the age.

And unlike them I believe the book of Revelation actually predicts a 3.5 year reign of a final Antichrist. So, here I suppose I borrow some from the Futurists.

From Dispensationalists I borrow belief in the literal salvation of national Israel at Christ's Coming, though unlike Dispensationalists I am not Pretrib. I'm Postrib, which is similar to Pre-Wrath.

I explored some of the others views as I got older, such as Post-millenialism and Protestant Historicism. My issue with some of these views, are that they seem to interpret the seven years literally. And are the four horse men not symbolical of events that have taken place all through history - such as the two World Wars, the famines in Africa?

Protestant Historicism has value to me in the sense that they pin on specific histoical events prophetic fulfillment. I just think they don't look far enough into the future to see a future Antichrist.

I do hold to much of Reform Theology, as opposed to how Catholics emphasize Church/Catholic Tradition as equal with Soteriological Doctrine, or other doctrine. I just don't share in their belief that the Pope was the Antichrist, though he may have been *an antichrist.*

As for Post-Millennialism, I believe like many Futurists in a literal Millennium of 1000 years following Christ's Return. It isn't mentioned as such in the OT, but the sense of Israel's final national deliverance is there, and I don't think that's happened yet. In my view we are not remotely *in the Millennium,* which is supposed to be a time of international peace with Satan bound!

In addition to this as can be seen occasionally on these threads the focus can become too much on Anti-Christ, rather than on the Person of Jesus Christ. I think Anti-christ is a spirit or a principality of evil. Even in the churches I believe this can be felt from time to time.

Well, I think the Antichrist spirit is present in every age. It just assumes different forms, such as in Nero, Hitler, or Stalin. I do believe a final Antichrist is coming who will take his place among 10 European countries.

Full-preterism seems to deny the Christian Hope, and collapses into a sort of christianised secularism. If I am mistaken about what Full-preterism teaches please inform me of what it believes about the Resurrection? And what this Scriptures refers to :

"They have left the path of truth, claiming that the resurrection of the dead has already occurred; in this way, they have turned some people away from the faith." 2 Timothy 2:18 (NLV)

The big problem with Full Preterism is they believe Jesus has already come. So they have little incentive to prepare for the Kingdom, and would naturally lapse into inactivity and a blending in with current society. They may not see the need for the Kingdom if the King isn't coming? But I don't know so much about it either, and have had no use for it.

 

[Fervent]

It seems to me that for every exegete there is a unique position on eschatology that only vaguely coalesces with others. I believe in multiple fulfillments, because it seems to me that every prophet has prophecies for their immediate audience but then a fuller as of yet unfulfilled element. Sort of like how Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled within his lifetime and for the kings he prophesied to but then found a fuller fulfillment in Jesus' first coming. But I have yet to see two commenters that align completely with one another, even when they both claim to belong to the same camp.

 

[RandyPNW]

It seems to me that for every exegete there is a unique position on eschatology that only vaguely coalesces with others. I believe in multiple fulfillments, because it seems to me that every prophet has prophecies for their immediate audience but then a fuller as of yet unfulfilled element. Sort of like how Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled within his lifetime and for the kings he prophesied to but then found a fuller fulfillment in Jesus' first coming. But I have yet to see two commenters that align completely with one another, even when they both claim to belong to the same camp.

There is a stream of consevative agreement in history--obviously, those who reject God's truth are going to offer their competing positions. On peripheral matters there are going to be opinions, though they don't challenge most conventional beliefs.

The prophets were given not only to speak to their own generation but to also provide the wider context of God's redemptive plan. So, we should not be confused over the difference between literal fulfillment and allusions to Messiah's coming.

But saying that there are multiple interpretations over a single passage is illegitimate. Allusions to greater truth is a matter of spiritual perspective, and yet there can be a double fulfillment in this regard, or some kind of universal truth.

 

[dms1972]

Thanks RandyPNW for your replies.

I am not part of a church fellowship at the moment. I felt that several I went to were to some degree asleep, but in some I felt there was a danger and a sort of spiritual complacency. I wanted to ask questions, but felt somewhat unable to articulate what I wanted to ask, and I wanted to speak to the Pastor but often times was blocked, and had to give a reason for wanting to talk to him.

I think people and I include myself in this, need to remember there is a wrath to come and that we must needs flee to Christ who is our only shelter from the storm. Whichever eschatology turns out to have been most Biblical, its whether we have found a refuge in Jesus Christ that will matter in the end.

Secularism and indeed nowadays neo-gnosticisms seep into ones soul very easily, sometimes through the TV and Newspapers and sometimes in workplaces, and through books, not to mention the denial of these important truths by some in the churches.