Eschatology change

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I've been premil since 2012. I think it is easier to read Revelation 20 in an amil framework. I now consider myself "futurist amil." Some issues:

1) I still hold to much of Alan Kurschner's reading of Matthew 24. And if his reading is correct, it demands something like a future Antichrist.
2) I hold to a late date on Revelation.
3) I am not an optimistic amil. I am quite "realist" (to use a neutral term) about the future.
4) There are some difficulties with amil. Recapitulation readings of Revelation run into difficulties trying to square Rev. 12-13 with Revelation 20. If Satan is bound during the entire church age, then it's hard to account for his actions of deceiving the nations in Rev. 13. That's why I probably opt for a future interpretation.

Anyway, that's a development for me.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
I've been premil since 2012. I think it is easier to read Revelation 20 in an amil framework. I now consider myself "futurist amil." Some issues:

1) I still hold to much of Alan Kurschner's reading of Matthew 24. And if his reading is correct, it demands something like a future Antichrist.
2) I hold to a late date on Revelation.
3) I am not an optimistic amil. I am quite "realist" (to use a neutral term) about the future.
4) There are some difficulties with amil. Recapitulation readings of Revelation run into difficulties trying to square Rev. 12-13 with Revelation 20. If Satan is bound during the entire church age, then it's hard to account for his actions of deceiving the nations in Rev. 13. That's why I probably opt for a future interpretation.

Anyway, that's a development for me.
I'd say we are pretty close on this issue. Glad to see you found your way clear of premillennialism. Now just see that you avoid the ditch on the other side of the road. ;)
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
I am also inclined to believe there will be a large number of Jews which turn to Christ in the time proceeding his return. Is that something you've given any thought?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
...it is the Confessional Presbyterian view.
Do you mean as in the Westminster Standards? I haven't given this topic much thought, so I'm interested to hear more. I looked through the Standards just now. The word "Jew" only occurs four times total in all three documents (three times in the WCF and once in the WLC). The only relevant time it occurs is in WLC 191, where it says we are to pray that "the Jews [would be] called."
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Are you referring to the magazine? Because I am not aware of anything in the Westminster Standards that addresses this subject.

Larger Catechism talks about the Jews being called (question 191). And almost all of the writers at that time would have held to that view.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Do you mean as in the Westminster Standards? I haven't given this topic much thought, so I'm interested to hear more. I looked through the Standards just now. The word "Jew" only occurs four times total in all three documents (three times in the WCF and once in the WLC). The only relevant time it occurs is in WLC 191, where it says we are to pray that "the Jews [would be] called."

You're right. It's not as explicit as I thought, but Iain Murray's Puritan Hope goes into greater detail.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
While I agree with you, the Larger Catechism doesn't exactly affirm this view. It says that in our prayers, we ought to pray for the conversion of the Jews. It does not say there will indeed be a large turning of the Jews to Christ in the last days.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
While I agree with you, the Larger Catechism doesn't exactly affirm this view. It says that in our prayers, we ought to pray for the conversion of the Jews. It does not say there will indeed be a large turning of the Jews to Christ in the last days.
You are correct. I guess I just read the writings of the SCottish Reformers into that line.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
Larger Catechism 191 notes that we are to pray that the Jews would be called. Presumably this is in relation to their effectual calling. It is not exactly the same as explicitly stating that there would be a conversion of the Jews, but when read in context it surely points in that direction. For instance, we are to pray that the fullness of the gentiles are brought in. Does that mean it may not happen?
 

Von

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am also inclined to believe there will be a large number of Jews which turn to Christ in the time proceeding his return. Is that something you've given any thought?
Yup - me too. One of the things that I am pondering is the 'jealousy' of Israel leading to their return. Is it possible that the great tribulation could lead the jews to recognize their own history and seeing a godly hope and peace (by the gentiles) in the face of that persecution?
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I've been premil since 2012. I think it is easier to read Revelation 20 in an amil framework. I now consider myself "futurist amil." Some issues:

1) I still hold to much of Alan Kurschner's reading of Matthew 24. And if his reading is correct, it demands something like a future Antichrist.
2) I hold to a late date on Revelation.
3) I am not an optimistic amil. I am quite "realist" (to use a neutral term) about the future.
4) There are some difficulties with amil. Recapitulation readings of Revelation run into difficulties trying to square Rev. 12-13 with Revelation 20. If Satan is bound during the entire church age, then it's hard to account for his actions of deceiving the nations in Rev. 13. That's why I probably opt for a future interpretation.

Anyway, that's a development for me.
Good insights from Kurschner on Matthew 24.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
In relation to the conversion of the Jews, note that the Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God says we are "To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; ...".
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
The Question in the Larger Catechism asks, "Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition? A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,)...."

The very nature of the question indicates that part of the kingdom of God coming is that these petitions will be answered before the second coming of Christ, as the answer ends that we would pray: "he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends".

As such, the Assembly's Directory of Public Worship states that the minister's prayer should:
“...pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord..."​
The Assembly indicates that if the gospel was to spread to all nations, the Jews would be converted, and the fulness of the Gentiles would be brought in, etc.

In the same light, Thomas Ridgley's commentary on the Larger Catechism (originally published in 1731?) states:
And, though it is true a considerable number of the Jews at first believed in Christ; yet the greatest part of that people were cast off, and all remain, at this day, strangers and enemies to him. Hence, we cannot but suppose that those prophecies which respect their conversion, in the latter day, together with the fulness of the Gentiles being brought in, shall be more eminently accomplished than they have hitherto been. This, therefore, is what we are to pray for when we say, ‘Thy kingdom come.’​
Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 621.​
 
Last edited:

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
In relation to the conversion of the Jews, note that the Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God says we are "To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; ...".

Looks like we posted at about the same moment!
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
I've been premil since 2012. I think it is easier to read Revelation 20 in an amil framework. I now consider myself "futurist amil." Some issues:

1) I still hold to much of Alan Kurschner's reading of Matthew 24. And if his reading is correct, it demands something like a future Antichrist.
2) I hold to a late date on Revelation.
3) I am not an optimistic amil. I am quite "realist" (to use a neutral term) about the future.
4) There are some difficulties with amil. Recapitulation readings of Revelation run into difficulties trying to square Rev. 12-13 with Revelation 20. If Satan is bound during the entire church age, then it's hard to account for his actions of deceiving the nations in Rev. 13. That's why I probably opt for a future interpretation.

Anyway, that's a development for me.
Something must be going around. I've just abandoned pure idealism for recapitulative historicism.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Something must be going around. I've just abandoned pure idealism for recapitulative historicism.
I've moved from Amil Historicist with plenty of idealism going on but I haven't found a place to land yet. Maybe I never will. I was listening to a lecture from Michael Heiser today and he stated that a deep study of eschatology was a waste of time, that eschatology is cryptic and will remain so. If that is the case I just wasted a year and a small chunk of cash on books :)
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
I've been premil since 2012. I think it is easier to read Revelation 20 in an amil framework. I now consider myself "futurist amil."

What resources would you say have had the biggest influence on your eschatological change? Any particular writings or lectures?

This week I started reading J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia and When Shall These Things Be? edited by K. Mathison. I had done very little reading on the preterist view previously and it has made me want to bone up on the various eschatological viewpoints. This has been an understudied area for me and I'd love to hear what has influenced you the most.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
I've moved from Amil Historicist with plenty of idealism going on but I haven't found a place to land yet. Maybe I never will. I was listening to a lecture from Michael Heiser today and he stated that a deep study of eschatology was a waste of time, that eschatology is cryptic and will remain so. If that is the case I just wasted a year and a small chunk of cash on books :)
Is that B H Carroll on your profile pic? He's been really helpful to me in working out a recapitulative historicism.

To my mind, "things which must shortly come to pass" rules out idealism and futurism. And I think the structure of the book clearly indicates recapitulation. I think those are the simplest indicators of how the book is meant to be understood. The only options left at that point are recapitulative historian and preterism, and preterism seems like a very "forced" way of reading the book.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
What does recapitulative historicism entail?
That the book consists of a series of recapitulations, as the idealists hold; but unlike idealism, that the book is primarily about real events rather than primarily being about principles.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
What resources would you say have had the biggest influence on your eschatological change? Any particular writings or lectures?

This week I started reading J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia and When Shall These Things Be? edited by K. Mathison. I had done very little reading on the preterist view previously and it has made me want to bone up on the various eschatological viewpoints. This has been an understudied area for me and I'd love to hear what has influenced you the most.
No main sources in particular. Just doubts I've been working with for almost ten years.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Idealism's fatal flaw is that Revelation (and prophecy in general) has concrete referents.

Historicism is at least tied to history. I have problems with how historicists might identify this or that referent, and I have some questions on their interpretation of Matt. 24.

Futurism needs to have better answers on the "soon" passages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top