Rethinking eschatology schemes?

Ivanhoe · #1 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 08:57 PM

This is something I have wrestled with for a while, and partly explains why I float between pre and postmil. I see truth in each scheme (not quite for amil, though). I also realize that these are sort of modern terms.

While I realize this is vague, are we perhaps asking the wrong questions when we frame our eschatology?

armourbearer · #2 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

While I realize this is vague, are we perhaps asking the wrong questions when we frame our eschatology?

Many wrong questions arise because people think prophetic oracles are only concerned with foretelling future events. Prophetism is a movement which affects the future by shaping the present. It's not simply the case that God has a plan for the future and the prophet makes it known. Because biblical prophecy is divine it is also infallibly self-fulfilling. The Word itself initiates the movement which results in its own fulfilment. Failure to comprehend this basic point dooms prophetic interpretation from the start.

Iconoclast · #3 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

While I realize this is vague, are we perhaps asking the wrong questions when we frame our eschatology?

Many wrong questions arise because people think prophetic oracles are only concerned with foretelling future events. Prophetism is a movement which affects the future by shaping the present. It's not simply the case that God has a plan for the future and the prophet makes it known. Because biblical prophecy is divine it is also infallibly self-fulfilling. The Word itself initiates the movement which results in its own fulfilment. Failure to comprehend this basic point dooms prophetic interpretation from the start.

This is an excellent point that is often overlooked. It also brings to mind the truth that the overwhelming volume of prophetic texts were given to reveal more of the knowledge of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The prophets spoke of these days of the Kingdom growth, and the reign of Jesus Christ. Revelation as the last book is the promised capstone of all the preceding revelations.
We are given just a small glimpse of His heavenly glory through John's eyes.
It is almost as when Moses was hidden in the cleft of the rock ,and able to catch but a glimpse of the passing glory of God.
It sets before us as the book of Hebrews presents Hebrews 12:1-3

Quote:

1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

3For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

The reason why we are to motivated to serve Him,is clear.
Any end time calendar or system that does not cause you to pursue, or follow after holiness needs to be cast aside Heb12:14

Quote:

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

15Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

16Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

17For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

That might be the key "end time " question to ask. Is what I see in the prophetic scripture making me-

Quote:

25See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

26Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

27And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29For our God is a consuming fire.

C. Matthew McMahon · #4 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 12:56 PM

Also note, and you may not have thought about this, but a "pre-mil" position is a denial of the WCF. The WCF has 1 resurrection, where the pre-mil has 2 resurrections.

dwayne · #5 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Also note, and you may not have thought about this, but a "pre-mil" position is a denial of the WCF. The WCF has 1 resurrection, where the pre-mil has 2 resurrections.

So true.

danmpem · #6 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Also note, and you may not have thought about this, but a "pre-mil" position is a denial of the WCF. The WCF has 1 resurrection, where the pre-mil has 2 resurrections.

Interesting, I didn't realize that.

Ivanhoe · #7 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Also note, and you may not have thought about this, but a "pre-mil" position is a denial of the WCF. The WCF has 1 resurrection, where the pre-mil has 2 resurrections.

I am not a strict subscriptionist anyway. I have been aware of that. I realize the wisdom of the divines, but if I have to take an exception (notice the subtle difference between exception and denial), so be it.

py3ak · #8 (**permalink**) 03-20-2008, 06:34 PM

The fact that Aquinas was asking whether the stars would get brighter and we aren't shows you that there are different questions to ask, and it would be provincial to assume that we have the right ones.

spainharvest · #9 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 02:20 AM

Questions for any pre-millers here. These are things I've thought about and have not received any formidable answers to. I am a-mil in my understanding of the end.

1. If our Lord comes before a literal 1,000 year kingdom, what will be left of the earth for Him to reign on if the elements melt with fervent heat and the heavens are rolled back as a scroll (i.e. no universe and only a scorched earth)?

2. Also, if when He comes as a thief in the night and takes vengence on those that know not God, who will be left upon the earth? Who will He reign over that eventually rebel against Him at the end?

3. If the Bride of Christ is consumated and completed at His coming, is there another resurrection for believers after the 1,000 year reign? If so where is this in Scripture?

If you are pre-mil these are sincere questions that have led me to be a-mil. Thanks to anyone who is willing to answer including those who may not be pre-mil but have an understanding of how one would answer the above questions.

Puritan Sailor · #10 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

This is something I have wrestled with for a while, and partly explains why I float between pre and postmil. I see truth in each scheme (not quite for amil, though). I also realize that these are sort of modern terms.

While I realize this is vague, are we perhaps asking the wrong questions when we frame our eschatology?

I think the banter between postmils and amils over the last century has resulted in a gradual melding of the two. Amils are postmils regarding the return of Christ. They just define "victory" and "historical progress" differently. And postmils for the most part have given up the later golden age idea for a more transformational progression concept between the advents of Christ. When Amil's understand that there is a promise of a new earth, and that history does continue with the Incarnate Christ, then that gives them more common ground to talk about historical victory with post and pre mils. I think when we all focus on the common points and clearer doctrines rather than the polarizing rhetoric and specualtions, it will enable us to reform and build a more biblical and ecumenical eschatology.

Ivanhoe · #11 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 09:00 AM

I am no longer the premiller I used to be, but I will give it a shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spainharvest

Questions for any pre-millers here. These are things I've thought about and have not received any formidable answers to. I am a-mil in my understanding of the end.

1. If our Lord comes before a literal 1,000 year kingdom, what will be left of the earth for Him to reign on if the elements melt with fervent heat and the heavens are rolled back as a scroll (i.e. no universe and only a scorched earth)?

Some premillers take the elements text to be referring to after the millennium. I actually think it refers to 70 AD and even if I were a premiller, I would still think that.

Quote:

2. Also, if when He comes as a thief in the night and takes vengence on those that know not God, who will be left upon the earth? Who will He reign over that eventually rebel against Him at the end?

Not all enemies will be killed is one interpretation. Another is at the end of the millennium, the offspring of said belieers 100, 500, 1,000 years before will apostasize.

Quote:

3. If the Bride of Christ is consumated and completed at His coming, is there another resurrection for believers after the 1,000 year reign? If so where is this in Scripture?

That's the only tricky part for me and is where I can't get my head around it. Short answer to your question, yes there willl be another resurrection. Revelation 20. A and postmills spiritualize this to mean a "spiritual" resurrection. Problem is, that is not what the word means in Greek.

Quote:

If you are pre-mil these are sincere questions that have led me to be a-mil. Thanks to anyone who is willing to answer including those who may not be pre-mil but have an understanding of how one would answer the above questions.

I became premill because I was dismayed at how amillennialists would spiritualize texts in a very arbitrary fashion. While I am no longer premil, I still have the same concern.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #12 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 09:13 AM

As far as Amill's "spiritualizing texts" I would consult Kim Riddlebarger's book on Amill.

turmeric · #13 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Any end time calendar or system that does not cause you to pursue, or follow after holiness needs to be cast aside.

What he said!

Ivan · #14 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 09:38 AM

If you aren't premil, what are you, Jacob?

Ivanhoe · #15 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

As far as Amill's "spiritualizing texts" I would consult Kim Riddlebarger's book on Amill.

I have read it twice. Riddlebarger didn't deal with the opposition's strongest positions and simply ignored others.

As to spiritualizations: I am all for typological interpretations. I am talking about when the Bible says things that point to a glorious age (Isa 2, 11, and in the prophets when it speaks of the desert blooming and mountains dripping sweet wine), and people get nervous and start positing non-earthy interpretations.

Typology isn't arbitrary. Spiritualizing is.

mshingler · #16 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spainharvest

3. If the Bride of Christ is consumated and completed at His coming, is there another resurrection for believers after the 1,000 year reign? If so where is this in Scripture?

This third point is the one that probably has had the most influence on me as far as moving away from dispensational premil. and, tentatively, amil. The only way I can see a millennium after Christ's coming is if the church is a temporary institution, as in dispensationalism, and there is a whole different class/group of redeemed who are actually not part of the church but are, as I used to refer to them, "millennial saints." I can't really reconcile that with the emphasis in the N.T. that the church is the true, spiritual people of God and the sum total of the redeemed, for whom Christ died.

Daniel Ritchie · #17 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:23 AM

The best Amill book I have read is Cornelis Venema's The Promise of the Future, which helped move me from a golden-age/Puritan postmill, to a modern preterist postmill, even though the author is not a preterist himself. He is so optimistic an amill, that he basically is postmill

Blueridge Baptist · #18 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:31 AM

I've been re-examining my postion on this issue as well lately. I find myself stuck about middle way between the amill and postmill postion. Partial preterist as well.

Ivanhoe · #19 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshingler

Quote:

Originally Posted by spainharvest

3. If the Bride of Christ is consumated and completed at His coming, is there another resurrection for believers after the 1,000 year reign? If so where is this in Scripture?

This third point is the one that probably has had the most influence on me as far as moving away from dispensational premil. and, tentatively, amil. The only way I can see a millennium after Christ's coming is if the church is a temporary institution, as in dispensationalism, and there is a whole different class/group of redeemed who are actually not part of the church but are, as I used to refer to them, "millennial saints." I can't really reconcile that with the emphasis in the N.T. that the church is the true, spiritual people of God and the sum total of the redeemed, for whom Christ died.

Russell Moore wrote a book that incorporates both your concerns and the defense of a millennial reign. He just doesn't focus the millennial reign around the Jews.

The Patristics knew this as well. Ireneaeus and Justin Marty employed chiliasm, but not as a defense for Jewish theology.

Amazon.com: The Kingdom of Christ: The New...

Daniel Ritchie · #20 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

This is something I have wrestled with for a while, and partly explains why I float between pre and postmil. I see truth in each scheme (not quite for amil, though). I also realize that these are sort of modern terms.

While I realize this is vague, are we perhaps asking the wrong questions when we frame our eschatology?

I think the banter between postmils and amils over the last century has resulted in a gradual melding of the two. Amils are postmils regarding the return of Christ. They just define "victory" and "historical progress" differently. And postmils for the most part have given up the later golden age idea for a more transformational progression concept between the advents of Christ. When Amil's understand that there is a promise of a new earth, and that history does continue with the Incarnate Christ, then that gives them more common ground to talk about historical victory with post and pre mils. I think when we all focus on the common points and clearer doctrines rather than the polarizing rhetoric and specualtions, it will enable us