What is your Eschatological viewpoint? [Poll]

[keras]

Lastly, what is the alternative to what you are arguing for? If the trumpet and bowl judgments happen not after, what is implied? Is it suggested that the seal, trumpet and bowl judgments all happen during the same time, like one judgment being seen from different angles or facets?

There is no alternative. Revelation's sequence of the Seals, then the Trumpets, followed by the Bowls, is how it will be. Proved by the 6th Bowl being the assembly of the armies and the 7th Bowl being the Battle of Armageddon and Jesus' Return. Revelation 16 & 19
We know the first five Seals are operational, by the visible effects of them on earth.

Therefore, the Sixth Seal is the next prophesied event, just as Isaian 61:1-2 Prophesies and Jesus confirmed by stopping His quote of it before: and a day of vengeance of God.

Sure, these issues are not critical for our Salvation, but knowing what the Lord intends to do to correct His Creation, will be a great help, when the disaster strikes.
Also, people who have funny ideas about Bible prophecy and teach weird theories, shuffling them around, or saying they are past history and spiritualizing them; are usually wrong about other things, too.

 

[keras]

I think you need to re-read the trumpets and vials. Their impact is definitely worldwide.

Sure they are, but they are clearly directed at those who have taken the mark of the beast.
Their effects will not hurt the faithful people, who will be taken to their place of safety. Revelation 12:14

Where do the martyrs come from; who John sees in Revelation 6:9-11?
.

 

[Douggg]

Sure they are, but they are clearly directed at those who have taken the mark of the beast.

Two of the vials are exclusively directed at them that had taken the mark.

2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,

The trumpets and vials have an effect on the entire world.

First the trumpets and all the green grass is burnt up. A third of the trees. The waters poisoned. A third of the ships destroyed. A third of the sea becoming as blood. And then the vials of God's wrath. All those things take place during the time of the red horse, the black horse, and the pale horse of the apocalypse, as the Great Tribulation becomes increasingly severe, and then the sign of the Son of Man in heaven in the sixth seal.

 

[FireDragon76]

Voted "Other". I'm an Amillennialist with Idealist and Partial-Preterist views. Though in many ways I am also agnostic on certain things, especially as it pertains to the Revelation of St. John. I mostly consider the Revelation to be a work for its time, thus I understand the Beast as a likely reference to Nero specifically, but to Roman imperial power more broadly; but also that in a sense that same anti-Christian power exists in many forms throughout times and places. I don't try and identify every detail in the Revelation with either a historical event or with a future event, but rather understand a lot of it within an idealist framework. On the other hand, I'm pretty convinced that the Olivet Discourse is, chiefly, about the destruction of the Temple, to which Jesus also adds that as it pertains to His coming and the end of the age, no one knows, and that it will come without warning, as the flood came without warning in Noah's day. It will be life as usual, people working, getting married, having children, when Christ returns in glory and judgment.

Actually, I'd go so far as to say that the Book of the Revelation features very little in my eschatological views. Which I think is pretty normative within more traditional Christian faith and practice; the Revelation has always been a controversial and enigmatic text in the Biblical Canon. It was one of the last books to gain widespread acceptance, and its significance has often been its liturgical influence moreso than eschatological. Martin Luther initially considered it as being undeserving of a place within the New Testament, though over time came to appreciate it more--keeping in mind that Luther engaged with a very old and longstanding discussion and debate about the Canon that included certain disputed books like the Revelation in the NT as well as the Deuterocaonical books in the OT.

-CryptoLutheran

I also would vote "other", as well. Most of the stuff in American and British Evangelicalism is wrong or extremely misguided, and distracts Christians from actually participating in the actual work of the Kingdom.

Apocalyptic literature is symbolic, representing the religious imagination of the authors, similar to the philosophy of Carl Jung. That doesn't mean it's untrue, but it doesn't necessarily refer to historical details, but represent perennial human fears and spiritual aspirations.

My views of the theological meaning of actual history are similar to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Aurobindo.

 

[didactics]

I also would vote "other", as well. Most of the stuff in American and British Evangelicalism is wrong or extremely misguided, and distracts Christians from actually participating in the actual work of the Kingdom.

Apocalyptic literature is symbolic, representing the religious imagination of the authors, similar to the philosophy of Carl Jung. That doesn't mean it's untrue, but it doesn't necessarily refer to historical details, but represent perennial human fears and spiritual aspirations.

My views of the theological meaning of actual history are similar to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Aurobindo.

It sounds to me that you're thinking like an idealist then. In looking up that name of similar or likeminded men to the views you hold, it would seem evolution or theistic evolution largely shapes your thinking on a lot of matters. What would you say is the actual work of the kingdom? I am a young earth creationist so I would say that impacts a lot of how I understand things in scripture. I would say the kingdom is not just about living your Christian life privately, but it is about shaping a community or culture with godly influence. For example, politics should be important to us. A lot of Christians and conservatives are talking about the push to do homeschooling because the public institutions are failing us. Even if we disagree on matters of creation, I think it is greatly important for the next generation or generations after us to be taught other views of historical science more seriously. As public institutions like schools or more so colleges push this view that religion and science are incompatible.

 

[FireDragon76]

It sounds to me that you're thinking like an idealist then. In looking up that name of similar or likeminded men to the views you hold, it would seem evolution or theistic evolution largely shapes your thinking on a lot of matters. What would you say is the actual work of the kingdom? I am a young earth creationist so I would say that impacts a lot of how I understand things in scripture. I would say the kingdom is not just about living your Christian life privately, but it is about shaping a community or culture with godly influence. For example, politics should be important to us. A lot of Christians and conservatives are talking about the push to do homeschooling because the public institutions are failing us. Even if we disagree on matters of creation, I think it is greatly important for the next generation or generations after us to be taught other views of historical science more seriously. As public institutions like schools or more so colleges push this view that religion and science are incompatible.

The Kingdom of God is the prophetic and mystical vision for the possibilities of humanity and the world reconciled in peace and justice through the power of love. It's articulated through Jesus sermons and parables.

I don't see the Kingdom of God as necessarily political. Politics is a limited way of dealing with the human condition. Jesus vision is committed to personal transformation and nonviolence.

I don't think religion and science are necessarily incompatible, but I don't understand the biblical idea of creation literally. I believe in abiogenesis (that life emerged from non-life through forces present within nature).

 

[didactics]

The Kingdom of God is the prophetic and mystical vision for the possibilities of humanity and the world reconciled in peace and justice through the power of love. It's articulated through Jesus sermons and parables.

I don't see the Kingdom of God as necessarily political. Politics is a limited way of dealing with the human condition. Jesus vision is committed to personal transformation and nonviolence.

I don't think religion and science are necessarily incompatible, but I don't understand the biblical idea of creation literally. I believe in abiogenesis (that life emerged from non-life through forces present within nature).

Matthew 6:10

Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.

Matthew Henry's Commentary

What God has promised we must pray for; for promises are given, not to supersede, but to quicken and encourage prayer; and when the accomplishment of a promise is near and at the door, when the kingdom of heaven is at hand, we should then pray for it the more earnestly; thy kingdom come; as Daniel set his face to pray for the deliverance of Israel, when he understood that the time of it was at hand, Dan. 9:2. See Luke 19:11. It was the Jews’ daily prayer to God, Let him make his kingdom reign, let his redemption flourish, and let his Messiah come and deliver his people. Dr. Whitby, ex Vitringa. “Let thy kingdom come, let the gospel be preached to all and embraced by all; let all be brought to subscribe to the record God has given in his word concerning his Son, and to embrace him as their Saviour and Sovereign. Let the bounds of the gospel-church be enlarged, the kingdom of the world be made Christ’s kingdom, and all men become subjects to it, and live as becomes their character.”
[end quote]

What’s being said here reminds me of the great commission. As a side note, I don’t think Matthew Henry finished his commentary but had assisting authors pick up where he left off on his commentary work and completed the exposition on the epistles and Revelation. He may have been a postmill but it is clear that he was partial preterist.

There is a clear difference to how you might get a commentary by a premill, when you consider this.

Believer's Bible Commentary

6:10 Your kingdom come. After worship, we should pray for the advancement of God’s cause, putting His interests first. Specifically, we should pray for the day when our Savior-God, the Lord Jesus Christ, will set up His kingdom on earth and reign in righteousness.
[end quote]

It would appear that he was premill (that is, William MacDonald) and saw the kingdom as a future day of Christ’s reign on earth. But as I mentioned earlier, premills and postmills are more similar on this point about the millennium. As amills tend to but not always hold to what’s known as two kingdoms theology. I don’t have a good definition for what that is, but it’s basically a way to distance themselves from the subject of Christian nationalism. Voddie Baucham who is an amill actually gave a good talk on this subject not long ago (as seen on a YouTube video, and the channel is Founders Ministries, dated January 18, 2023).

 

[ViaCrucis]

The doctrine of the two kingdoms is a term that refers to Martin Luther's way of speaking of two kinds of authority which God has established. They can be briefly summarized as temporal or secular authority (i.e. that of the state), and spiritual authority (i.e. the Church). It is also generally held within the larger Lutheran framework of the Law-Gospel Dialectic. So, for example, it is the role and purpose of the state to curb evil, and thus to punish evil doers and protect the weak and vulnerable; while it is the Church's role to preach the Gospel.

Thus there cannot be a confusion or encroachment of the secular powers upon the Church; nor the Church taking for herself the offices of the state. In some ways it foreshadowed the political doctrine of the separation of church and state that gained traction in the 18th century, in fact James Madison credited Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms as one of the inspirations behind his understanding of how the American Constitution ought to handle the government's relationship to religion, which is expressed in the Non-Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

The doctrine of the two kingdoms is a term that refers to Martin Luther's way of speaking of two kinds of authority which God has established. They can be briefly summarized as temporal or secular authority (i.e. that of the state), and spiritual authority (i.e. the Church). It is also generally held within the larger Lutheran framework of the Law-Gospel Dialectic. So, for example, it is the role and purpose of the state to curb evil, and thus to punish evil doers and protect the weak and vulnerable; while it is the Church's role to preach the Gospel.

Thus there cannot be a confusion or encroachment of the secular powers upon the Church; nor the Church taking for herself the offices of the state. In some ways it foreshadowed the political doctrine of the separation of church and state that gained traction in the 18th century, in fact James Madison credited Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms as one of the inspirations behind his understanding of how the American Constitution ought to handle the government's relationship to religion, which is expressed in the Non-Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

-CryptoLutheran

The early Swiss Reformation also had the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, but with a slightly different emphasis: the ability of the godly to transform society, not through direct political control, but through virtue. It's not surprising that some later Puritans and Pietists had views that were similar to what wolud be knonwn today as "post-millenialism". This was especially common in the 19th century in many Protestant denominations.

Some of the earliest thought on religious freedom came from the same group of reformers. Sebastian Castellio, a French theologian, preacher, and a one-time friend and then enemy of Calvin (he had many), took issue with the judicial murder of Michael Servetus and became one of the first advocates in the early-modern era for freedom of religion. His most famous remark, "If you kill a man you do not defend a doctrine, you just kill a man" is something that had lasting power over the Enlightenment.

 

[FireDragon76]

Matthew 6:10

Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.

Matthew Henry's Commentary

What God has promised we must pray for; for promises are given, not to supersede, but to quicken and encourage prayer; and when the accomplishment of a promise is near and at the door, when the kingdom of heaven is at hand, we should then pray for it the more earnestly; thy kingdom come; as Daniel set his face to pray for the deliverance of Israel, when he understood that the time of it was at hand, Dan. 9:2. See Luke 19:11. It was the Jews’ daily prayer to God, Let him make his kingdom reign, let his redemption flourish, and let his Messiah come and deliver his people. Dr. Whitby, ex Vitringa. “Let thy kingdom come, let the gospel be preached to all and embraced by all; let all be brought to subscribe to the record God has given in his word concerning his Son, and to embrace him as their Saviour and Sovereign. Let the bounds of the gospel-church be enlarged, the kingdom of the world be made Christ’s kingdom, and all men become subjects to it, and live as becomes their character.”
[end quote]

What’s being said here reminds me of the great commission. As a side note, I don’t think Matthew Henry finished his commentary but had assisting authors pick up where he left off on his commentary work and completed the exposition on the epistles and Revelation. He may have been a postmill but it is clear that he was partial preterist.

There is a clear difference to how you might get a commentary by a premill, when you consider this.

Believer's Bible Commentary

6:10 Your kingdom come. After worship, we should pray for the advancement of God’s cause, putting His interests first. Specifically, we should pray for the day when our Savior-God, the Lord Jesus Christ, will set up His kingdom on earth and reign in righteousness.
[end quote]

It would appear that he was premill (that is, William MacDonald) and saw the kingdom as a future day of Christ’s reign on earth. But as I mentioned earlier, premills and postmills are more similar on this point about the millennium. As amills tend to but not always hold to what’s known as two kingdoms theology. I don’t have a good definition for what that is, but it’s basically a way to distance themselves from the subject of Christian nationalism. Voddie Baucham who is an amill actually gave a good talk on this subject not long ago (as seen on a YouTube video, and the channel is Founders Ministries, dated January 18, 2023).

What is sometimes called "Partial preterism" was fairly common at one time.

Premodern Christians tended to have a completely different understanding of sacred time. Following Augustine, they tended to see the Kingdom fulfilled in the institution of the Church, they did not believe in a literal millenium, and they didn't necessarily have the same sense of progress in history that shaped later western thought.

Joachim of Fiore (who had a great deal of influence over writers such as Dante), had a theology of time which was closer to what would be known today as "post-millenialism": he was inspired by the rise of Franciscan and Dominican orders and saw St. Dominic and St. Francis as latter-day prophets, but he also saw an end to the institutional Church, and the emergence of the "Age of the Spirit". Fiore's writings were rediscovered by certain Protestants, and it's likely that contributed to their understanding of time as well.

 

[didactics]

The doctrine of the two kingdoms is a term that refers to Martin Luther's way of speaking of two kinds of authority which God has established. They can be briefly summarized as temporal or secular authority (i.e. that of the state), and spiritual authority (i.e. the Church). It is also generally held within the larger Lutheran framework of the Law-Gospel Dialectic. So, for example, it is the role and purpose of the state to curb evil, and thus to punish evil doers and protect the weak and vulnerable; while it is the Church's role to preach the Gospel.

Thus there cannot be a confusion or encroachment of the secular powers upon the Church; nor the Church taking for herself the offices of the state. In some ways it foreshadowed the political doctrine of the separation of church and state that gained traction in the 18th century, in fact James Madison credited Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms as one of the inspirations behind his understanding of how the American Constitution ought to handle the government's relationship to religion, which is expressed in the Non-Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for your input. From what I get there are different strains of two-kingdoms theology. Michael Horton who holds to the view himself said, “Like all great books, his [Augustine] City of God is interpreted rather differently by various schools. However, it is indisputable that it helped to create what came to be called the doctrine of the two kingdoms.” I learned about this matter from YouTube when a preacher called Joel Webbon with right response ministries talked about this. And I agree with his estimation that many today have taken a radical interpretation of two kingdoms to be a distinctive of what is sacred and what is common. Rather, he, Joel, says the way two kingdoms ought to be defined is the way scripture defines it, namely the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. And you don’t find all light in the church and all darkness in the state, but you do find some light and darkness in both those spheres of life. And he would add to that another sphere of life ordained by God, the home.

 

[didactics]

What is sometimes called "Partial preterism" was fairly common at one time.

Premodern Christians tended to have a completely different understanding of sacred time. Following Augustine, they tended to see the Kingdom fulfilled in the institution of the Church, they did not believe in a literal millenium, and they didn't necessarily have the same sense of progress in history that shaped later western thought.

Joachim of Fiore (who had a great deal of influence over writers such as Dante), had a theology of time which was closer to what would be known today as "post-millenialism": he was inspired by the rise of Franciscan and Dominican orders and saw St. Dominic and St. Francis as latter-day prophets, but he also saw an end to the institutional Church, and the emergence of the "Age of the Spirit". Fiore's writings were rediscovered by certain Protestants, and it's likely that contributed to their understanding of time as well.

Thanks for your input. Perhaps you are right on a lot of what’s said here. I have not looked into this all that much. But I did find one thing that might be off. You said that, “he [Joachim of Fiore] was inspired by the rise of Franciscan and Dominican orders and saw St. Dominic and St. Francis as latter-day prophets,…” But here on Wikipedia it says, “Members of the spiritual wing of the Franciscan order acclaimed him as a prophet, however Joachim denied being a prophet himself.[7]” However, that doesn’t really disprove your earlier statement, as Joachim is only said to deny being a prophet himself.

What I find interesting is that the early Church seemed to have only two main ideas of eschatology which was amill and historic premill, but they went by different names in that time period. I mainly heard of postmill being a popular held view beginning around the time of the Puritans, but it sounds like ideas from the Middle Ages could have shaped their views. As for dispensational premill, I’ve heard it had it’s inspiration from someone named John Nelson Darby, but some argue that he only brought this view to the forefront since most theologians apparently wanted to avoid the subject. The idea is that most were too concerned about predicting the end and acting fanatical, so congregations were intentionally left in the dark about dispensational teachings. But I don’t know what to make of that as it doesn’t sound believable.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks for your input. Perhaps you are right on a lot of what’s said here. I have not looked into this all that much. But I did find one thing that might be off. You said that, “he [Joachim of Fiore] was inspired by the rise of Franciscan and Dominican orders and saw St. Dominic and St. Francis as latter-day prophets,…” But here on Wikipedia it says, “Members of the spiritual wing of the Franciscan order acclaimed him as a prophet, however Joachim denied being a prophet himself.[7]” However, that doesn’t really disprove your earlier statement, as Joachim is only said to deny being a prophet himself.

What I find interesting is that the early Church seemed to have only two main ideas of eschatology which was amill and historic premill, but they went by different names in that time period. I mainly heard of postmill being a popular held view beginning around the time of the Puritans, but it sounds like ideas from the Middle Ages could have shaped their views. As for dispensational premill, I’ve heard it had it’s inspiration from someone named John Nelson Darby, but some argue that he only brought this view to the forefront since most theologians apparently wanted to avoid the subject. The idea is that most were too concerned about predicting the end and acting fanatical, so congregations were intentionally left in the dark about dispensational teachings. But I don’t know what to make of that as it doesn’t sound believable.

Keep in mind, Puritans in many ways were the elite, liberal theology of their day, especially in England, at least for a window of time (until the Cambridge Platonists came along, anyways). They had a transformationist paradigm that predisposed them towards an optimistic view of history, because they believed that, by eliminating the Papacy, reforming the religion, and installing godly men, they could improve society, and free it from "idolatry". They also favored more discipline on the laity than even Rome imposed.

 

[Douggg]

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for your input. From what I get there are different strains of two-kingdoms theology. Michael Horton who holds to the view himself said, “Like all great books, his [Augustine] City of God is interpreted rather differently by various schools. However, it is indisputable that it helped to create what came to be called the doctrine of the two kingdoms.” I learned about this matter from YouTube when a preacher called Joel Webbon with right response ministries talked about this. And I agree with his estimation that many today have taken a radical interpretation of two kingdoms to be a distinctive of what is sacred and what is common. Rather, he, Joel, says the way two kingdoms ought to be defined is the way scripture defines it, namely the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. And you don’t find all light in the church and all darkness in the state, but you do find some light and darkness in both those spheres of life. And he would add to that another sphere of life ordained by God, the home.

I've never heard of the language of the two kingdoms used in the way Joel Webbon has. Scripture does speak of our being delivered out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light as a way to speak of our salvation; that doesn't seem to be at all what St. Augustine had in mind when he wrote the City of God, which was written in response to the sacking of Rome and the fears that many had that the fall of Rome was "the end of the world". Augustine drew a sharp distinction between the temporal and the eternal; between the kingdom(s) of men and the kingdom of God. The fall of Rome means the end of a temporal power in the world, but God's kingdom is entirely other than the earthly power of emperors and kings.

The two kingdoms refers to two forms of divinely instituted authority, as that is what "two kingdoms" refers to. There is temporal authority, which is ordained by God explicitly in this fallen and sinful world for the purpose of the ordering of human society to mitigate the temporal realities and consequences of sin in the context of humans living together. Human beings need social structure, those who exploit and harm the vulnerable and turn their neighbors into victims of grave injustice and evil face the consequences of those actions, and we have laws which say, "Do not do this". However the rule and authority of human government is entirely temporal, it is necessitated because we bear in ourselves the guilt and stain of sin, a brokenness that infects our humanity and by which our natural passions are disordered and we inflict harm against others. Such is the entire institution of human governance and law, secular power is necessitated for the prospering of human life in an unjust world in which we are, ourselves, the agents of injustice against one another.

God's kingdom, that is the heavenly and divine kingdom, is everlasting; and rather than it being about human society and civilization; it is about the fixing and healing of the disordered relationship between man with God. Man, disordered in his passions, estranged from God, is called to repentance, and to hear the good news of God's love and compassion through Christ and His life, death, and resurrection; which is the means of our reconciliation, healing, and restoration. Our sins are forgiven, God declares us righteous on Christ's account.

It is the distinction between our relationship with our neighbors, i.e. Righteousness Coram Mundus, the active righteousness of good works; and our relationship with God, i.e. Righteousness Coram Deo, the passive righteousness, the imputed and received righteousness received through faith.

How we relate toward our neighbor is love and good works, by lives of humility, gentleness, mercy, charity, generosity, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, medical care for the sick, welcoming the foreigner, etc. It is the caring of the widow and the orphan, justice for the poor and the needy, etc.

How we relate toward God is faith in His promises, for He is gracious without measure, who loves us and keeps us and saves us out of His rich and abundant love which He gives us in Christ, who lived, died, and rose again; who reigns at the right hand of the Father with all power and authority, and who comes again at the end of the Age, in judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the healing of the nations, and the renewal and restoration of all things in the Age to Come.

There is what God has commanded, "Do this" because it is good and right, because our neighbor labors, because all of creation labors and suffers. And there is what God promises, "Trust this" because it is what God does and gives, through Christ, which is received through faith out of His uncompromising grace.

So the two kingdoms are another expression of the Law-Gospel Dialectic. This dialectic is, certainly, a deeply Lutheran thing. But it's not limited to the Lutheran tradition, it was embraced (at least technically) by the Reformed as well, and good Reformed preachers will also know this distinction and of its importance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for your input. Perhaps you are right on a lot of what’s said here. I have not looked into this all that much. But I did find one thing that might be off. You said that, “he [Joachim of Fiore] was inspired by the rise of Franciscan and Dominican orders and saw St. Dominic and St. Francis as latter-day prophets,…” But here on Wikipedia it says, “Members of the spiritual wing of the Franciscan order acclaimed him as a prophet, however Joachim denied being a prophet himself.[7]” However, that doesn’t really disprove your earlier statement, as Joachim is only said to deny being a prophet himself.

What I find interesting is that the early Church seemed to have only two main ideas of eschatology which was amill and historic premill, but they went by different names in that time period. I mainly heard of postmill being a popular held view beginning around the time of the Puritans, but it sounds like ideas from the Middle Ages could have shaped their views. As for dispensational premill, I’ve heard it had it’s inspiration from someone named John Nelson Darby, but some argue that he only brought this view to the forefront since most theologians apparently wanted to avoid the subject. The idea is that most were too concerned about predicting the end and acting fanatical, so congregations were intentionally left in the dark about dispensational teachings. But I don’t know what to make of that as it doesn’t sound believable.

As far as Dispensationalism and John Darby, it is in essence his unique brain-child. Though some have made an at least reasonable case that some of the ideas associated with Dispensationalism were pre-Darby, if only by a few decades. But Darby synthesized and put forward a systematic idea that we call Dispensationalism. Even if Darby wasn't being completely innovative on his own, the ideas expressed therein remain innovative and novel ideas of the modern era.

Arguments which attempt to find older, even ancient, precedent are baseless and rooted in fundamentally misreadings of certain authors through eisegesis. I've seen St. Irenaeus used frequently to defend Dispensationalism, but a faithful reading of Irenaeus doesn't allow that; while Irenaeus was certainly a Chilliast (what is sometimes called Historic Premillennialism today), he cannot be used to support the modern Dispensationalist cause. The only other example I have seen has been an English translation of a Latin work that calls itself the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem, which is entirely different in content than the Syriac form of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraim. I've never been able to find any examples of this particular Latin work earlier than a 19th century German text. Both Irenaeus and a supposed form of the Pseudo-Ephraem apocalypse are frequently provided on Dispensationalist websites, and in the case of Pseudo-Ephraem, it is at times provided dishonestly as the genuine work of St. Ephraem the Syrian.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

The Eschatological viewpoints that are offered as poll options are derived from the Eschatology Forum Statement of Purpose. So if you are confused about which one you believe, consulting that topic may be helpful.

As for me, I believe in Pre-tribulation - Futurism above because of Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36-37:



But perhaps you believe differently than me about this. What do you believe?

I've been going to Assemblies of God churches for many years, which are Pretrib, but I'm Postrib. I was raised up in a church that was Amill, and I never knew any different until I came face to face with the Jesus People in the early 70s. They were Pretrib/Premills, many influenced by the teaching of Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. Many of them also were influenced, as I was, by the teaching of Hal Lindsey, who wrote "The Late Great Planet Earth."

It was only after engaging in a practice of Bible memorization that I became Postrib. That was because in memorizing 2 Thessalonians, I felt that Paul was teaching that viewpoint in the most explicit fashion. There were bits in there about the "Restrainer" that was confusing. But leaving that aside, the teaching appeared to me to be blatantly Postrib. I now join the Church Fathers in believing that the "Restrainer" is the imperial tradition of Roman culture, which permeates Europe even today. It is restraining the appearance of the Antichrist, who will take advantage of a divided Europe.

I engaged in a study of Postrib vs Pretrib in the mid-70s, and read George E. Ladd and Robert Gundry. They have been leading Postrib theologians. Ladd is dead now, but as far as I know, Gundry is still around. I received a newsletter from James McKeever for awhile, who also taught Postrib. I read the journalist account of a possible Pretrib history in "The Incredible Coverup" by Dave Macpherson. There are some current authors advocating for this position, as well, along with well-known Christian personalities in modern history.

I've addressed every one of the points of Pretrib thinking, but do not expect to change thinking. The Holy Spirit convicts of truth--not me. But I would defend my own beliefs to the extent they are reasonable and biblical. Imminent expectation does sound like "Christ can come any any moment," which precludes any belief in a Postrib Rapture. But I view Imminency differently, as a regular fixation upon the fact of Christ's Coming, knowing that we must always be walking with the Lord in the present, and not put this off for a future time. To walk with the Lord is to be ready for his Coming today, no matter if he comes 50 years from now. But I do expect his coming to be soon. Maranatha

 

[RandyPNW]

As far as Dispensationalism and John Darby, it is in essence his unique brain-child. Though some have made an at least reasonable case that some of the ideas associated with Dispensationalism were pre-Darby, if only by a few decades. But Darby synthesized and put forward a systematic idea that we call Dispensationalism. Even if Darby wasn't being completely innovative on his own, the ideas expressed therein remain innovative and novel ideas of the modern era.

Arguments which attempt to find older, even ancient, precedent are baseless and rooted in fundamentally misreadings of certain authors through eisegesis. I've seen St. Irenaeus used frequently to defend Dispensationalism, but a faithful reading of Irenaeus doesn't allow that; while Irenaeus was certainly a Chilliast (what is sometimes called Historic Premillennialism today), he cannot be used to support the modern Dispensationalist cause. The only other example I have seen has been an English translation of a Latin work that calls itself the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem, which is entirely different in content than the Syriac form of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraim. I've never been able to find any examples of this particular Latin work earlier than a 19th century German text. Both Irenaeus and a supposed form of the Pseudo-Ephraem apocalypse are frequently provided on Dispensationalist websites, and in the case of Pseudo-Ephraem, it is at times provided dishonestly as the genuine work of St. Ephraem the Syrian.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, I've heard these things too. It is thought by some that early Chiliasm advocated for Amillennialism in a sense by its "Replacement Theology." That is, the view that Israel went out with the OT Law and was replaced by the NT Church is a feature in Amillennialism.

It was this dominant belief in Replacement Theology that caused Dispensationalists to root themselves with early Chiliasm, thinking that Premill is the basis for their own system. But Chiliasm never contained elements of an any-moment Rapture of the Church, nor is there a trace of Pretribulational Theology, in my opinion.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I am a pre-trib futurist. Think about it.
The house is burning down and your beloved children are inside it. As a father, what would you do?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am a pre-trib futurist. Think about it.
The house is burning down and your beloved children are inside it. As a father, what would you do?

John 3:16

The house has been on fire since Adam and Eve. For through one man's disobedience came sin and death to all men, so through one Man's righteous obedience has come justification and the resurrection of the dead.

This is the meaning of the Scripture that says we have not been ordained for wrath. For the wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness. Christ tasted that wrath for us on the cross, when He who knew no sin became sin in order that we might be called the righteousness of God: for we have received the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ by grace through faith.

God didn't promise that we wouldn't endure hardships, just the opposite: the Lord Himself said "In this world you will have tribulation, but be courageous, for I have conquered the world." And "If the world hated Me, it will hate you as well."

We have a loving Father who will hold onto us through every fire and storm, for our refuge is in Christ His only-begotten Son, our Lord. Right up until the end, when Christ returns in glory as Judge of the quick and the dead.

-CryptoLutheran