What's your Eschatological Position??

**Grimmson** · 06-27-2009 06:57 PM

[QUOTE=Damon Rambo;643149]
Augustine was the first to come up with Amillennialism (or more properly, arrange and express the view of Tyconius). In 430, the premillennial position was banned: by this time, though, Christianity was already beginning to be in bondage to the papacy. So, in my opinion, the next 1000 years of Christianity does not count, at least the "official" church, anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how you see it, historic premillennialism was the original, and oldest view.
[QUOTE]

There were christians during the last 1000 years of the church, so I think it should count. Clement of Alexandria and Origen denied the historic premillennialism position I think and if memory serves there were different variants of the premillennialism position by the church fathers. The rise of the historic premillennialism and popularity as we see it today was a response against the dispensationalism of the late 19 century, even though we can find baptists like John Gil in support of it much earlier. So we must consider the majority view of reformation was Amillennialism historically, from Luther and his denomation to Calvin when making our claim.

I am not saying I disagree with your position on being historical premillennialists, but I do not think we call our position historically the majority view and at the same time look at the church fathers in complete agreement on the issue at hand.

**he beholds** · 06-27-2009 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by shackleton

I would have to say that I am sort of a partial-preterist/Amil. I believe most of the prophecy in the NT pertained to the first century audience and Revelation was probably written prior to the destruction of the Temple. I also believe that all of the "Lion with lamb" verses pertain to the time when creation has been restored back to its original glory, after the resurrection.

That sounds like what I believe.
I would have voted "a-mil" but what is partial-preterist???
I know it is still possible, but the three and a half good years followed by three and a half bad years, then Christ returning and taking the believers but leaving the unbelievers and giving them 1000 years to come to him sounds very science-fictiony to me. (Maybe because it has become so in our culture, so I am not saying that this means it can't be true.)

I also wonder about it taking people 1000 years to come to Christ when God predestines them. It certainly could best glorify him to take 1000 years, but it doesn't make sense in my little head. Perhaps all I know of the position is hearsay of Nostradamus from standing in the grocery store check-out line too long, and I don't really understand the position.

**Damon Rambo** · 06-27-2009 10:57 PM

[quote=Grimmson;643212]

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

Augustine was the first to come up with Amillennialism (or more properly, arrange and express the view of Tyconius). In 430, the premillennial position was banned: by this time, though, Christianity was already beginning to be in bondage to the papacy. So, in my opinion, the next 1000 years of Christianity does not count, at least the "official" church, anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how you see it, historic premillennialism was the original, and oldest view.

There were christians during the last 1000 years of the church, so I think it should count.

The Roman Catholic Papists were the ones doing the writing. So what position the "Christians" held, is up for debate.

**Kauffeld** · 06-27-2009 11:10 PM

Historic Postmill here thanks to Patrick Fairbairn's "The interpretation of prophecy"

**Grimmson** · 06-27-2009 11:40 PM

[quote=Damon Rambo;643294]

Originally Posted by Grimmson

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

Augustine was the first to come up with Amillennialism (or more properly, arrange and express the view of Tyconius). In 430, the premillennial position was banned: by this time, though, Christianity was already beginning to be in bondage to the papacy. So, in my opinion, the next 1000 years of Christianity does not count, at least the "official" church, anyway.

Anyway, regardless of how you see it, historic premillennialism was the original, and oldest view.

The Roman Catholic Papists were the ones doing the writing. So what position the "Christians" held, is up for debate.

You cannot blame Rome on this one, and I am most assurely anti-romanist. Amillennialism is the dominat view taken not just by the West(Rome), but also the East with the Eastern Orthodox churches( regardless if their Greek, Russian, Syrian, Armenian, and I think also Coptic even though their not techically a part the Eastern Orthodox Churches).

In fact this view of church history, if you were to be consistent negelecting the next 1000 years of the church and their theology as whole, would lead you to hold a Alexandrian text- type codex or proto version there of versuses the Byzantine text type. Thus affecting the TR and to some degree The NA27. I am just showing how your view of church history also affects are theology and transmission of the Bible that we have today. Therefore let us not be blaming Rome for the Amillennialism posistion and instead bring up our evidence biblically for the case there of for historic premillennialism. We must be careful how we use history becaue the premillennialism of our church fathers did vary, so we cannot just go back and claim a standard universal position; assuming we want to be true to the truth that we proclaim.