Historic Premill View

staythecourse · #1 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 12:28 AM

The things I've concluded so far, whether right or wrong.

Yes. Every event can be argued as having been fulfilled by 70 AD but not as catastrophically as what is still coming to pass where Scripture speaks of global physical bad things.
Yes. There were earthquakes at the crucifixion - locally
Yes. There were astronomical events - locally (correct me here Scripturally - did darkness spread across "the earth" or "the land" or can it be determined?)

But did the seas turn to blood? I am sure if you stretch Scripture far enough you can say seas turned to blood in some type of symbolism but I rest in literalism as much as I can, so if the Nile turned to undrinkable blood in Moses' days-water I am waiting for the same to happen again, literally with other great bodies of water.
Did stars fall and cause poisoned water? I am sure some type of logic can be used to say that happened but I believe that just as Egypt suffered physically with food and water, so will the entire earth as it comes under judgment.

As far as Ezekiel's temple is concerned it, according to my understanding, the sacrifices can start up again but without one iota of significance to God as Christ's blood has already been shed and that's the only blood that matters to God.

There is no secret rapture but the dead in Christ get raised followed with us who are living in quick succession to come back to earth with Christ to reign in Jerusalem where he sets set up a millennial kingdom when 1. Satan will be bound and 2. People will feign love and obedience to Christ with the saints and 3. Folks will die at 100 and be considered cursed while other folk live to 1000.

Satan will be loosed again at the end with and Armageddon scene with literal nations attacking us where we are rule the world from Jerusalem and then Christ put an end to it all with the final Judgment.

Alright, chip away at the logic brothers. I'm ready to listen.

DMcFadden · #2 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:23 AM

Gutsy guy. You advance a premil point of view here in the land of Calvin and Edwards, of Engelsma and Gentry, of "see no evil" Amils and "there's a great big beautiful tomorrow" Postmils? What are you . . . nuts? Bryan, please keep the bullets to yourself. All of the truly great martyrs in church history went to their martyrdom alone, they did not bring their PB brothers along with them. I am already picking the buckshot out of my backside all evening for my "heretical" view of credo baptism. Now you want to go and turn the spotlight on the few of us who opt for a non-standard PB eschatological schema too?

I'll bet you volunteer to tell your SBTS profs who didn't finish their homework too.

bookslover · #3 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staythecourse

There is no secret rapture...

I wonder why it's always referred to as a "secret" rapture. The Bible certainly doesn't regard it in that way (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). It will be a very public event!

armourbearer · #4 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

I wonder why it's always referred to as a "secret" rapture. The Bible certainly doesn't regard it in that way (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). It will be a very public event!

Accordingly, the text affirms that the general resurrection takes place at the second coming of Christ, and that this coming results in the consummation wherein the saints are to be with the Lord for ever, thereby nullifying any thought of a millennial reign on earth.

Ivanhoe · #5 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:53 AM

Russell Moore's book the Kingdom of Christ is the best presentation of the historic premil book. He even has some amillennialists admitting they are stumped.

If the debate were simply between Russell Moore's historic premil and today's amillennialism, Russell Moore wins hands down. He even convinced me. However, due to my own recent understanding of biblical symbolism, I cannot go with him on Revelation 20. That being said, I still think his criticisms of amils on that point are valid.

BlackCalvinist · #6 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 09:14 AM

Jacob - you're not premill anymore ?

Do you still have those links to Moore's premill talk from a while back that you posted ?

Reformingstudent · #7 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Gutsy guy. You advance a premil point of view here in the land of Calvin and Edwards, of Engelsma and Gentry, of "see no evil" Amils and "there's a great big beautiful tomorrow" Postmils? What are you . . . nuts? Bryan, please keep the bullets to yourself. All of the truly great martyrs in church history went to their martyrdom alone, they did not bring their PB brothers along with them. I am already picking the buckshot out of my backside all evening for my "heretical" view of credo baptism. Now you want to go and turn the spotlight on the few of us who opt for a non-standard PB eschatological schema too?

I'll bet you volunteer to tell your SBTS profs who didn't finish their homework too.

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

I wonder why it's always referred to as a "secret" rapture. The Bible certainly doesn't regard it in that way (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). It will be a very public event!

Accordingly, the text affirms that the general resurrection takes place at the second coming of Christ, and that this coming results in the consummation wherein the saints are to be with the Lord for ever, thereby nullifying any thought of a millennial reign on earth.

My former minister (Rev. John Hawthorne) once preached on that passage and said this about the secret rapture:

"In order to believe that you would have to believe in a whispering God, a dumb archangel, and a mute trumpet."

Ivanhoe · #9 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist

Jacob - you're not premill anymore ?

Do you still have those links to Moore's premill talk from a while back that you posted ?

I reject millennial schemata (post, a, pre). I do not think they do justice to the text. I do like the millennial kingdom idea. But I am a partial preterist with regard to the "negative passages."

here is the link:
The Henry Institute: Audio

danmpem · #10 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I reject millennial schemata (post, a, pre). I do not think they do justice to the text. I do like the millennial kingdom idea. But I am a partial preterist with regard to the "negative passages."

Could you ellaborate a little more please?

Ivanhoe · #11 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I reject millennial schemata (post, a, pre). I do not think they do justice to the text. I do like the millennial kingdom idea. But I am a partial preterist with regard to the "negative passages."

Could you ellaborate a little more please?

Postmills are absolutely correct to note that the latter days do not always mean failure for God. Isaiah 2, etc.

Premils are absolutely correct to note the prophetic role of the church in calling judgment on apostate culture. They are also correct to affirm the goodness of God's material creation (e.g., Rev 20). They rightly react to the hyper-spiritualizing of OT passages by amils (there is a difference between typology and spiritualizing).

amils? Well, I can't think of strengths at the moment but I am sure they are there. I guess I would agree with them that we are in the church age, but I reject that the church is synonymous with the kingdom of God and that the Church simply replaces Israel.

Problem is, I am not convinced by any one scheme. With the exception of amil, they all have their good points.

Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter reconvinced me of partial preterism.

Amazon.com: The Promise Of His Appearing: An...
Here is a quote from Russell Moore.
Apocalyptic Kuyperianism

PuritanCovenanter · #12 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:02 PM

I do hold to the Amil position because I do see that Isreal is the Church. I hold to it primarily because of it's Kingdom emphasis. Chirst has dominion over all things for the Church as Ephesians says. The passages that speak about Satan's binding convince me. He is bound. And like A. W. Pink I think this passage is pertinent.

Quote:

(1Co 15:22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

(1Co 15:23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

(1Co 15:24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Ivanhoe · #13 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I do hold to the Amil position because I do see that Isreal is the Church. I hold to it primarily because of it's Kingdom emphasis. Chirst has dominion over all things for the Church as Ephesians says. The passages that speak about Satan's binding convince me. He is bound. And like A. W. Pink I think this passage is pertinent.

Quote:

(1Co 15:22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

(1Co 15:23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

(1Co 15:24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

If I were postmil, I would die on this hill. It is too dominion-oriented. But I won't go there. What George Ladd and others argue, however, is that 23-24 posit a break. Logically speaking, it is not wrong to argue for an intererim between v. 23 and . 24. But this is too contested a ground.

PuritanCovenanter · #14 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:15 PM

Amil is actually a relatively new term. If one was amil it was considered post a few hundred years ago according to Cornelius P. Venema.

I really appreciated this book...

Promise of the Future :: Cornelis P. Venema :: Contemporary Authors :: Modern Authors :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books and Resources for Christians

Ivanhoe · #15 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:17 PM

Venema is probably the best amillennialist. He doesn't pessimize passages and deals doesn't resort to straw-manning other positions. I would definitely recommend his work.

Daniel Ritchie · #16 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Amil is actually a relatively new term. If one was amil it was considered post a few hundred years ago according to Cornelius P. Venema.

I really appreciated this book...

Promise of the Future :: Cornelis P. Venema :: Contemporary Authors :: Modern Authors :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books and Resources for Christians

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Venema is probably the best amillennialist. He doesn't pessimize passages and deals doesn't resort to straw-manning other positions. I would definitely recommend his work.

to both comments; even a hard-core postmiller like myself appreciated and learned much from Dr. Venema's work. He moved me away from the golden-age postmill view to a modern postmill approach.

staythecourse · #17 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Gutsy guy. You advance a premil point of view here in the land of Calvin and Edwards, of Engelsma and Gentry, of "see no evil" Amils and "there's a great big beautiful tomorrow" Postmils? What are you . . . nuts? Bryan, please keep the bullets to yourself. All of the truly great martyrs in church history went to their martyrdom alone, they did not bring their PB brothers along with them. I am already picking the buckshot out of my backside all evening for my "heretical" view of credo baptism. Now you want to go and turn the spotlight on the few of us who opt for a non-standard PB eschatological schema too?

Well I'm finally comfortable enough to express this view among friends. I have not read one book on eschatology. I can't tell you how I came up with this since I never did a systematic study on it. I am ready for it to get hammered!

staythecourse · #18 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Accordingly, the text affirms that the general resurrection takes place at the second coming of Christ, and that this coming results in the consummation wherein the saints are to be with the Lord for ever, thereby nullifying any thought of a millennial reign on earth.

Thanks Pastor Winzer. I don't necessarily agree but I'm reading this stuff. I think (emph. "think") that we will be with the Lord forever from that point on reigning for 1000 years and beyond. I don't think the two events are, as they say, mutually exclusive.

staythecourse · #19 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

The passages that speak about Satan's binding convince me. He is bound.

Thanks Randy. I want to see these types of verses which will help me understand "how much" Satan is bound now (man I hate his guts and wish he were dead) and what type of loosing if any there will be, etc.

armourbearer · #20 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staythecourse

I think (emph. "think") that we will be with the Lord forever from that point on reigning for 1000 years and beyond. I don't think the two events are, as they say, mutually exclusive.

What, then, do you make of Rev. 20:5, concerning "the rest of the dead?"