What's your eschaetological view?

You know Terri, I don't even disagree with that quote that you gave. It really is all in how you read the Bible. Most Lutherans just say Rev. 20:4-6 is figuative and then cite the two "day as a thousand year" verses as proof. I myself, am not dogmatic on amillennialism. If Luther had lived longer and got into eschatology, then maybe he would've been a premillennialist.

I misunderstood the poll, I thought it was meaning the rapture, and when I read your post, I see that you equate the rapture with the 2nd comming. That's what I get for being impulsive


I personally believe that Christ will literally come and setup his kingdom, and that the rapture will come before or coincide with the 2nd advent. I understand Revelations to say that the tribulation is before the Millenial Reign, and that their will be a rebellion at the end of The Reign --Satan will be loosed. Do you all remember King Nebukenezzar's dream about the statue and the kingdoms of the world, it represents, and how a mountain will crush the statue (Daniel)?

I lean toward historicism rather than futurism. I have no idea where it would fit on this poll. (The chart I posted isn't entirely accurate, as preterists tend to believe there is still a few prophecies to be fulfilled.)

I understand that Premil (Dispensational)= pre-trib rapture and that Premil (Hisotric/Classical)= post-trib rapture.

Terri said:

The origin of a-millennialism.

This is a piece that I believe quite nicely answers the question of the origin of a-millennialism:

{start quote}It seems that the earliest prophetic view of the church was pre-millennial (ie: a time of great destruction would come, followed by the return of Jesus, followed by a literal millennial age, as prophesied in the Old Testament). Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both taught this view in the second century.

In the 4th century with Constantine's conversion and the beginning of the Holy (Christian) Roman Empire an alternate view of prophecy came to dominate Christian thinking. This view is often called a-millennialism or "realized" millennialism. It teaches that we are now living in (have realized) the millennial age. It teaches that the first resurrection of Rev 20 is a spiritual resurrection (conversion to believing in Jesus being the first resurrection) and that Satan's confinement in the abyss is limited in scope, keeping him only from deceiving ALL the residents of all of the nations (Presumably Satan can, theoretically, deceive 99.9% but not 100% of all of the residences of a nation).

The theological foundation of this view was built by men like Origen and Augustine who took a far more allegorical (rather than literal) view of prophecy. As Hal Lindsey explains in his book "The Road to Holocaust", this view gained prominence first in the Theological school of Alexandria which began to teach an allegorical approach to Bible interpretation to facilitate an integration of Biblical teaching with Greek philosophy.

I believe there are 2 reasons why amillenialism came to dominate Christian thinking.

First the allegorical approach to Bible interpretation strips the Bible of any objective meaning. Any words might mean any thing. Such an approach inevitably drives one to put his faith in the interpreter rather than the Bible itself. This approach serves well the interests of any who claim to be the one true church and thus the final authority on what the Bible really says. Under this approach the Bible corrects no man and any man can "correct" the Bible.

Secondly, the rise of the Holy Roman empire no doubt looked to contemporary Christians like the coming of the millennial age. In this new age, a formerly persecuted church was now giving spiritual advice to the Emperor of Rome. It could have been reasoned that Jesus had not literally come back but maybe He had come back spiritually speaking, in a kind of world wide spiritual resurrection as evidenced by the fall of Rome (spiritually speaking) into the hands of the Christians. The nice (destructive?) thing about allegory is that you can make almost any words mean anything. The thinking of the day might have been, "The millennium is here, why fight it, just enjoy it."

History shows that what began as the "Holy Roman Empire" under Constantine eventually disintegrated into the dark ages and ultimately the corruption that forced the Reformation. Increasingly horrible wars and plagues would continue to oppress mankind to this very day. No literal millennium had come at all.

This question really comes down to how to interpret the Bible.

Should our bias be literal as is our bias with other texts (if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense) noting symbolic language where it is obvious we must do so?

Or is the Bible all really symbolic, in which case the whole faith of the reformation becomes questionable (namely using the Bible to evaluate the church)?

The faith of many old line reformed churches seems to be that all of the Bible is to be taken literally, except prophecy, which is always to be read with an allegorical bias. But where is the Biblical calling to adopt that dual approach? It was not the approach of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and presumably, by extension, the 2nd century church in general. {end quote}

The only problem I have found with Luther is that he just didn't have enough time in his life to correct all the the wrong doctrines that he brought with him out of his previous church. Had he lived longer I believe a-millennialism is an error he would have hopefully eventually corrected.

Click to expand...

Terri, God give you Peace.

Would you please pm me the source of that quote? It is inconsistent in some key respects with the history I have read concerning the topic, so I would like to study it and it's source. I have been recently giving presentations on this topic and am always looking for new material which might shed more light on the topic(s).

God Bless,
P12

theseed said:

I misunderstood the poll, I thought it was meaning the rapture, and when I read your post, I see that you equate the rapture with the 2nd comming. That's what I get for being impulsive


I personally believe that Christ will literally come and setup his kingdom, and that the rapture will come before or coincide with the 2nd advent. I understand Revelations to say that the tribulation is before the Millenial Reign, and that their will be a rebellion at the end of The Reign --Satan will be loosed. Do you all remember King Nebukenezzar's dream about the statue and the kingdoms of the world, it represents, and how a mountain will crush the statue (Daniel)?

Click to expand...

Theseed, God give you Peace.

Rapturism is not necessarily included in pre/post/amillenialism. It is an addition to the time-line of end-time events used by some people who adhere to those beliefs.

For example, many premillennialists have a time-line as follows: period of tribulation, 2nd Advent of Christ, 1,000 year earthly Kingdom, Judgment. The rapturist would insert a "rapture" into that timeline. Where in that time-line it is placed depends on whether the rapturist is pre/mid/post tribulational!!!

So the rapture is not necessarily part of the differing millenniarianisms. Historically, the rapture came into existence as a belief nearly 1,900 years after millenarianism.

As you might expect, the semantics can get really murky when discussing this area!

You are right to recall to mind Daniel and the vision of the statue. It definitely sheds light on the "Kingdoms" and whether or not we are in the Kingdom of Christ now. Be sure to study the beast vision and the revelation by the angel regarding the 70 weeks of seasons, as those two reiterate, emphasize and build upon the foundation of the statue vision, which is the central theme of Daniel. It is interesting to look at this in light of the New Testament as well (ie. Jesus calling himself the "Son of Man"), the writings of the early Church Fathers and history.

God Bless,
P12

It seems to me that most of the theories are based on a lot of speculation. I stopped trying to figure it out a long time ago. All I know is this, live like Christ will return tomorrow and plan like He won't return for another 1,000 years.

Amen Lotar! Spoken like a true Lutheran.

1TH 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words

Well, anyone that knows their Bible knows that there is no question that the rapture will occur. The timing of the rapture is the only question.

God himself was the originator of the rapture theory in the Bible!! That 1TH 4:16--copied above for your convenience!

I know some of you get hung up on the word Rapture! If it would make it easier for some of you, feel free to call it the "catching up to meet the Lord in the air."

What's my eschatalogical view?

Confused.

I am probably pre-millennial, pre-trib but I am listening to opposing viewpoints.

I've got nothing wrong with the rapture, just some of the crazy theories of when it will occur

My question with the pre-trib rapture is: What is being described in Matthew 24?

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Click to expand...

It seems to describe the visual coming of Christ. It says that everyone(all nations) will see the Son of Man. As far as I can see, this is NOT describing the rapture, it is describing the coming of Christ.

If the rapture had occured seven years before, then we could calculate when Christ would come(7 years after the rapture). This verse also states that well will not know the day or the hour. We will not know when He is coming back, only when it is near.

If the actual coming of Christ is being described here, and not the rapture(it has occured 7 years before), then the pre-trib rapture theory contradicts the Bible on the basis of being able to know the day and the hour. The only way for this to work is if it is the rapture being described in the above verses. What is being described? The rapture of the second advent of Christ?

Terri said:

1TH 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words

Well, anyone that knows their Bible knows that there is no question that the rapture will occur. The timing of the rapture is the only question.

God himself was the originator of the rapture theory in the Bible!! That 1TH 4:16--copied above for your convenience!

I know some of you get hung up on the word Rapture! If it would make it easier for some of you, feel free to call it the "catching up to meet the Lord in the air."

Click to expand...

Terri, God give you Peace.

Like the early Church Fathers, I don't have an issue with the parousia either. They and I only take issue with the modern notion that the parousia will be in order to spare us from suffering. The term parousia itself represented a jewish custom during the time of Jesus. Whenever a dignitary, military leader or someone else whom people in a city respected or adored would come to visit a city, those people would come out of the city to meet that person and accompany him into the city. This is precisely what happened when Jesus entered Jerusalem that last time. They came out to meet him and accompany Him back, with great celebration, into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday).

In the same way, Paul tells us in 1 Thess 4:17, that when Jesus returns again (the 2nd Advent) the faithful will go to meet Him (in this case in the "aer" (atmosphere)) and then accompany Him as He comes to exercise Judgement. St. Augustine really wrote some interesting thoughts on this topic in his book "The City of God."

Semantics yet again! When you say "rapture" do you mean the "rapture" in the sense of the old understanding of parousia or in the sense of the modern connotation (modern being since approximately 1830 and being that which spares the faithful from suffering)? Hehe.

As far as it not mattering as to what you believe in this field of study, I used to think that myself. After all, whether you are raptured (modern sense) or Jesus comes and it is all over with no rapture (modern sense), the whole point remains that we must be prepared! Right?

But then I thought about it in light of John 8:32 and I changed my mind. The more I thought about it, the more it occurred to me that I needed to seek the truth on this matter. And I began to see real pitfalls of believing falsely, not only in the ideal sense of my very vivid imagination, but actually played out historically in very real lives.

God Bless and I love all of you - what a blessing you are to me!!!
P12

Preachers12 said:

So the rapture is not necessarily part of the differing millenniarianisms. Historically, the rapture came into existence as a belief nearly 1,900 years after millenarianism.

Click to expand...

I've read a book that cited an early church father that believed in the rapture (300 AD), it his name started with an "E", do you know who this might be?

theseed said:

I've read a book that cited an early church father that believed in the rapture (300 AD), it his name started with an "E", do you know who this might be?

Click to expand...

Theseed, God give you Peace.

The person with an "E" that you are referring too is St. Ephraem, a 4th Century Syrian writer. In the writing in question it is written:
A later passage adds:
There are a few issues with this commonly used "support" for an earlier belief in the "rapture." First, the authorship is seriously in question. So much so that the author is listed as "Pseudo-Ephraem." Next, these lines are out of context. Neither line mentions any of the basic elements of the Second Advent, such as Christ's Coming down from heaven, a resurrection of the dead and the glorification of the saved's bodies. Also, within this same writing are phrases telling how Christians will suffer in the final tribulation. Finally, this writing overall was on the topic of Judgement Day, not a day prior to it.

Then, when we look at other, verified, writings of St. Ephraem, we see that they explicitly address how the Church will suffer through a period of tribulation. Moreover, there is an indication in these writings that any gathering and being taken to the Lord refers to an act of conversion rather than a rapture-like event. Personally, I can see that in re-reading the quote above as being a possible application.

Many early Church Fathers spoke of the parousia. But as I wrote in the earlier post, this, which is commonly now referred to as a "rapture", is different from the modern day sense of a rapture as we know it though books like the "Left Behind" series.

The term "rapture" itself comes from the latin verb which was used in the Latin Vulgate for the verb "caught up" in 1 Thess 4:17.

There is no instance of any early Church Fathers describing an event which meets the "Left Behind" notion of a "rapture." That is, a catching up of the faithful in order to be spared suffering (whether it be from a period of tribulation or otherwise).

St. Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165 A.D.) wrote about the two advents of Christ in "Dialogue With Trypho" as found reprinted in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325" which makes it clear that he believed the faithful would have to endure tribulations just like the unfaithful. In other words, no rapture (modern sense).

St. Irenaeus (c. 125 - c. 205 A.D.), who happened to come to a belief in a physical millennial reign, though it was contrary to the Church's teaching likewise never indicated anywhere that the faithful would be spared suffering during a period of tribulation. No rapture (modern sense).

The list goes on, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Melito of Sardis, Methodius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom.

Thanks for an outstanding question! I had to go digging to find the person with an "E" that you were talking about! And every time I go digging, I find God's gold

God Bless,
P12

Preachers12 said:

Terri, God give you Peace.

Would you please pm me the source of that quote? It is inconsistent in some key respects with the history I have read concerning the topic, so I would like to study it and it's source. I have been recently giving presentations on this topic and am always looking for new material which might shed more light on the topic(s).

God Bless,
P12

Click to expand...

Terri, God give you Peace.

Just bumping this older post. I have not seen a post or pm in response to it and I would really like to see the cite on the quote you used. I'm not questioning it's authenticity. I really want to go look at it all in context and see who the author is.

God Bless,
P12

Lotar said:

It seems to me that most of the theories are based on a lot of speculation. I stopped trying to figure it out a long time ago. All I know is this, live like Christ will return tomorrow and plan like He won't return for another 1,000 years.

Click to expand...

Good answer!

I like Christ's own response: "No one knows when that Day will be. Therefore, I say to you, Be ready!"

And I want to make one final observation: What is the primary reason why the Jews (our Messianic Jewish brethren excepted) reject the Messiahhood of Jesus?

The answer is, because in their view He did not fulfill the expectations they had for a Messiah -- one who would cast out the oppressor and establish the rule of righteousness in a restored Kingdom. Jesus's First Coming was not an eschatological event where all wrong was made right in the secular, objective world. Rather, He taught that "the Kingdom of God is within you" -- is the personal and internal change to accepting His Kingship in your own life.

Of course, there were "enlightened Jews" who interpreted the Messianic prophecies not in that way, but in a "spiritual" way that each Jew was supposed to live as an example to the Gentiles, and there would be no historical coming of a Messiah.

But, like the Spanish Inquisition in the old Monty Python catchphrase, nobody expected Jesus -- nobody expected that the Messiah would teach living a moral life in radical commitment to God and the welfare of one's fellow man, and then suffer and die as a convicted criminal to atone for the sins of others.

What does this say about our expectations of a Second Coming?