Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am amillennial in the sense of holding to a realised millennium in Christ, in accord with inaugurated eschatology and the two-age now/not-yet outlook of the New Testament. How else can all believers be called saints, citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and have the immediate expectation of glory after this life? I am postmillennial in holding to the biblical expectation of all nations coming to worship God and the kingdoms of the world becoming the kingdom of Christ. The prophetic outlook is tremendously optimistic, and there is no indication in the New Testament that this should be confined to a small remnant. God knows those who are His, but the church labours and prays according to the revealed will of God; eschatology should therefore take in more than an elect-reprobate paradigm, and should have a shaping influence on missions and world history.
Because Daniel's stone/mountain, the Parable of the Leaven, etc, must be talking about an ongoing process > and there is no indication of any radical alteration in that process or that it can be launched into eternity. It is a gradual process in history commenced in the first century. Thus I am a post millennialist, although I believe that what Revelation 20 is speaking of, was commenced in the first century. So in one sense I'm a realised millennialist but I don't believe realised millennialism is static. The Church under Christ is making gradual but real progress against her enemies (e.g. I Corinthians 15:25) to make a display of all the manifestations of unbelief.What is the "deciding factor" that you believe, in your position (whatever position you have), that causes you to hold to your position. (i.e. why I am a Postmillennialist in two sentences, etc.)
I'm probably not as preterist as you, being only "mildly so" but is this relationship, if we can call it that, between the events of the first century and the events at the end of history not there because there is a close relationship between Christ's Ascension and Second Coming (e.g. Acts 1:10-11)? In His Ascension He ascends in the clouds to His Father to receive and govern His kingdom. In His Second Advent He manifests and vindicates and consummates that kingdom rule before all of humanity.I am amillennial because, much like Rev. Winzer's reasons, we are in the Kingdom now and I see the 1000 years denoting that, not necessarily a golden age just the symbolic reign of Christ since His first coming. Riddlebarger helped me with that as I came out of dispensationalism 6 or so years ago.
I am a Preterist because I see all those (not second coming obviously) as being fulfilled in the 1st Century and that was is typically referred to as his second coming is from the book of Daniel where Christ ascends and not descends (at the time) to take His throne.
Many of the early Church fathers held to a form of Chiliasm, but they hd no idea on any rapture, as that was not until 1830! I was once holding to premil/pre trib, now firmly historical premil!Not firmly settled in any eschatological camp. Once was staunchly anil, but lean more towards Chiliasm now. And post-trib, too.
I'm probably not as preterist as you, being only "mildly so" but is this relationship, if we can call it that, between the events of the first century and the events at the end of history not there because there is a close relationship between Christ's Ascension and Second Coming (e.g. Acts 1:10-11)? In His Ascension He ascends in the clouds to His Father to receive and govern His kingdom. In His Second Advent He manifests and vindicates and consummates that kingdom rule before all of humanity.
It is probably unwise for preterists to confuse the Ascension or the manifestations of Christ's rule in the first century e.g. Pentecostal, the end of the OT administration, etc, etc, with His Second Advent.
I don't think the events of the First Century typify His Second Advent, but along with many other blessings and other judgements of the last 2,000 years they are adumbrations of final judgment on the wicked and blessing on the just because Christ is ruling and building His kingdom in history and that is constantly in various ways anticipating the Eschaton.
Yes. You cannot be Reformed or evangelical and hold that utterly unbiblical lie and perverse interpretation of Scripture.The Full Pretierist view has been seen as being heresy by the orthodox, as it denies Jesus' physical resurrection and ours, yet to come in a future Second Coming!
Yes. You cannot be Reformed or evangelical and hold that utterly unbiblical lie and perverse interpretation of Scripture.
Better be a Dispensationalist with all their error than a heretical Hyper-preterist.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Exactly. Though many don't admit/realize it, the above don't belong in the same class as hyper-preterists.Or even Nicene, Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or even Nestorian and hold that view.
Just curious as to what they view means?Amillennial. Progressive Parallelism view for Revelation.
Yes. You cannot be Reformed or evangelical and hold that utterly unbiblical lie and perverse interpretation of Scripture.
Better be a Dispensationalist with all their error than a heretical Hyper-preterist.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Or even Nicene, Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or even Nestorian and hold that view.
Edited postJust curious as to what that view means?
From what theological traditions did it arise out from, as had neverhear of it in Charasmatic/Dispensational days, much less now as a Baptist...
I hold to an idealist reading of Revelation because it harmonizes well with the rest of New Testament doctrine, and because a historical-realist interpretation like that of historicists, preterists, and futurists necessitates a great deal of speculation.What is the "deciding factor" that you believe, in your position (whatever position you have), that causes you to hold to your position. (i.e. why I am a Postmillennialist in two sentences, etc.)
Amil