Before I do talk about my stumbling block, I feel I must share a bit of my story when it comes to escathology.
In the start, I held to a sort of escathological agnosticism. I didn't concern myself with it much, as I was much more interested in Soteriology. However, escathology is a popular debate subject, much more popular, I daresay, than soteriology. So, I eventually came to a position that at the time I didn't know what was called, but now I know to be called Historical Premillenialism. I hadn't actually been much exposed to the other views, except a brief forray into amillenialism during my Catholic begginings--which I blame for my initial escathological agnosticism. Anyways, due to this lack of exposure I thought historical premill was the only alternatives in the square. However, through the internet in other places, I was exposed to the preachings of dispensationalist premillenialists. Their ideas clashed with mine, and I knew them to be wrong, but I couldn't quite defend myself due to the lack of knowledge I had in the area, so I ventured into the internet for more info in the escathological problem. There I was exposed to many, I believe, sound refutations of the dispensationalist position; I was also exposed to postmillenialism. As I researched on it, I found it to make much more sense than premillenialism, either historical or dispensational. So I came to call it my own theology, though I still felt there was something amiss. I had by this time began to pay much more attention to escathological passages in the Bible, and I felt that while postmillenialism was more correct than premillenialism, there was more. Then--and this happened in a very brief period--I read the Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies theology syllabus on its escathological section, and my eyes were opened. I came to amillenialism, and now beleive it firmly.
Now, the begginigs of espousing a new theology can be very troubled--I distinctly remember my doubts and inner turmoils when I first became a calvinist, and how I trembled when some verse that seemed to prove arminianism was presented to me. Eventually, with my own industriousness--modesty aside--and lots of help from fellow Calvinists, either in writings or here on this forum
--I was able to overcome at least most of these troubles, and become more or less versed in defending the doctrines of Grace.
Now, I know most reformed people are either amill or postmill, and since both perspectives can probbly be useful here, even if I only agree with one, I'd like to ask your help regarding the interpretation of one verse that is being a bit of a stumbling block to me:
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Luke 21:24
The bolded part being the problem. One view I've heard, that seems plausible, but again I'm not sure on, is that since there can be established a distinction between Christian and Gentile, that spiritual Israel has a presence in Jesusalem through Churches and Christians, and that has thus been fulfilled. This instead of going in political explanations that would be dispensational-like. However, I'd like to hear your views.
Other reason I created this thread is for everyone else to share their escathological experiences, even if I'm probably going to anger a few dispensational premills without our mist.
What do you believe escathologically? How was your spiritual journey to these beliefs?
In Christ
In the start, I held to a sort of escathological agnosticism. I didn't concern myself with it much, as I was much more interested in Soteriology. However, escathology is a popular debate subject, much more popular, I daresay, than soteriology. So, I eventually came to a position that at the time I didn't know what was called, but now I know to be called Historical Premillenialism. I hadn't actually been much exposed to the other views, except a brief forray into amillenialism during my Catholic begginings--which I blame for my initial escathological agnosticism. Anyways, due to this lack of exposure I thought historical premill was the only alternatives in the square. However, through the internet in other places, I was exposed to the preachings of dispensationalist premillenialists. Their ideas clashed with mine, and I knew them to be wrong, but I couldn't quite defend myself due to the lack of knowledge I had in the area, so I ventured into the internet for more info in the escathological problem. There I was exposed to many, I believe, sound refutations of the dispensationalist position; I was also exposed to postmillenialism. As I researched on it, I found it to make much more sense than premillenialism, either historical or dispensational. So I came to call it my own theology, though I still felt there was something amiss. I had by this time began to pay much more attention to escathological passages in the Bible, and I felt that while postmillenialism was more correct than premillenialism, there was more. Then--and this happened in a very brief period--I read the Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies theology syllabus on its escathological section, and my eyes were opened. I came to amillenialism, and now beleive it firmly.
Now, the begginigs of espousing a new theology can be very troubled--I distinctly remember my doubts and inner turmoils when I first became a calvinist, and how I trembled when some verse that seemed to prove arminianism was presented to me. Eventually, with my own industriousness--modesty aside--and lots of help from fellow Calvinists, either in writings or here on this forum
--I was able to overcome at least most of these troubles, and become more or less versed in defending the doctrines of Grace.Now, I know most reformed people are either amill or postmill, and since both perspectives can probbly be useful here, even if I only agree with one, I'd like to ask your help regarding the interpretation of one verse that is being a bit of a stumbling block to me:
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Luke 21:24
The bolded part being the problem. One view I've heard, that seems plausible, but again I'm not sure on, is that since there can be established a distinction between Christian and Gentile, that spiritual Israel has a presence in Jesusalem through Churches and Christians, and that has thus been fulfilled. This instead of going in political explanations that would be dispensational-like. However, I'd like to hear your views.
Other reason I created this thread is for everyone else to share their escathological experiences, even if I'm probably going to anger a few dispensational premills without our mist.
What do you believe escathologically? How was your spiritual journey to these beliefs?In Christ
