Double Post-Tribulational Pre-Amillennialism

[Doulos McKenzie]

[Disclaimer: this is not a Babylonian Bee article]

Ran into this article the other day and want to know what y'all think.
Honestly to me it just sounds like Historicism re-branded.

http://www.postost.net/lexicon/double-post-tribulational-pre-amillennialism

 

[arapahoepark]

When I saw Perriman's website I stopped. He is a bizarre but, intellectually astute emergent whose books are wholly made of his blog posts. Not worth your time. EVER.

 

[arapahoepark]

He believes in a sort of spiritual rapture before an actual resurrection. His poorly worded blog posts do little justice. He has hit and run ta tics.
By the way, he is a UNITARIAN. I forgot to mention that.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

He believes in a sort of spiritual rapture before an actual resurrection. His poorly worded blog posts do little justice. He has hit and run ta tics.
By the way, he is a UNITARIAN. I forgot to mention that.

Yes, yes, but that is not the point of the thread.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I know nothing of the author nor the website, but I appreciated this comment preceding his charts of the various eschatological views:

"The diagrams are not to scale and should not be used as a basis for investment decisions or the purchase of life insurance."

 

[arapahoepark]

Yes, yes, but that is not the point of the thread.

He has a kind of weird narrative theology that tends to checker a lot of things in. Our own Ed Dingess took him to task in a series of blog posts. Basically, he atarts viewing these things from either a pre-Christendom, Christendom, and post Christendom readings. Using his method he believes Jesus did not talk about hell just 70 AD. His stuff is not worth your time.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

He has a kind of weird narrative theology that tends to checker a lot of things in. Our own Ed Dingess took him to task in a series of blog posts. Basically, he atarts viewing these things from either a pre-Christendom, Christendom, and post Christendom readings. Using his method he believes Jesus did not talk about hell just 70 AD. His stuff is not worth your time.

Yes. I know. But this has literally nothing to do with the OP

 

[arapahoepark]

It seems incoherent, piting Paul against Jesus initially in terms of different Prophetic horizons, with the idea both have already past in our world.
That said, undoubtedly the Olivet discourse largely referred to 70 AD as most Theologians would hold. As a Preterist I am biased because I do not think Jesus or Paul had different horizons or ideas. Since I think Revelation was mostly filled in 70 AD, I do not see the point. I know Bahnsen held a view that it was regarding the end of pagan Rome. Having read Perriman his vaciliates a lot, like here. His view of rapture seems more spiritual, in line with his book. That part in particular is bizarre in the way he says "double-post tribulationism".His idea of a second coming is all garbled because he rants more about how it is not to be seen in the traditional way.
His idea is somewhat interesting but, there are purer waters for getting there.