Historic Premill-- I'm I the only historic premillennialist on the board?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puritanhead

Puritan Board Professor
Historic Premill-- I\'m I the only historic premillennialist on the board?

I'm I the only historic premillennialist on the board? I embrace the eschatology of G.E. Ladd, C.H. Spurgeon, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Papias. I'm wrestling with more of an historicist versus futurist approach, but rule out the hyper-futurism, pretribulationism of dispensationalism in any case.

My secondary choice would be amillennialism, though more of an historicist than idealist approach. I have Kim Riddlebarger's book on Amillennialism, which is pretty good.

I've ruled out preterism, excepting the fact that the historicist interpretation of the 70 weeks is virtually analagous to that of the preterist. But when the Apostle Paul speaks of the "falling away" and "evil waxing worse and worse" towards the end, I hardly see the end at 70 A.D.

I read Keith Mathison's book Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope: Books on theonomic postmillennialism though it doesn't quite convince me, and my flirtation with postmillennialism has tapered down. In fact, I think the dominion mandate according to Kenneth Gentry is blatant eisegesis now.

[Edited on 6-28-2006 by Puritanhead]
 
My eschatological views are largely undefined at this point, although I probably lean toward the amil view. I'd like to study the historic premil more. I think key 20th century exponents included George E. Ladd and J. Barton Payne (of Covenant College/Seminary). Payne wrote a massive work on prophecy. I think this was Schaeffer's view too.
 
I was historical premillenialist until I read Ian Murray's Puritan's Hope. The transition to postimillenialism seemed fairly easy to me, but I'm not one of them new-age postmills.:bigsmile:

Vic
 
Well, what irks me is how people can be dogmatists about their view without weighing the evidence... particularly dispensationalists, though it holds true for some Reformed sects as well.

I sometimes have problems with historic premil-- but I'm getting a hold of G.E. Ladd's books, that I studied in college, and using them as a reference, as I try to resolve these questions. I have a stronger grasp for eschatology than before, and still profess uncertainty on many matters. Too me, it seems amillennialism is the only viable alternative. I'm very very very skeptical of idealism, and would seemingly prefer historicism or futurism.

If someone ever wants to suggest other books on amill-- I'm all ears.

I read Sproul's Last Days According to Jesus, though I was not convinced of partial preterism. I will say that reading various eschatological views helps a person, and sharpens one's acumen. Edmund Burke says, "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

Reading non-dispie preterists at least challenged me to reevaluate certain errors that I was beholdened to-- as repudiating dispensationalism is often like peeling an onion... it was a slow process, as a recovering dispensationalist slowly realizes how many dispensationalist presuppositions they're beholdened too. When I was growing up, my house was litered with Scofield Bibles, because my parents didn't know any better, and it is what my grandparents passed off onto us.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Puritanhead]
 
Sometimes, I think the appeal with partial-preterism is its simplicity. I understand it. But does that make it valid?

And should people not consider the other alternatives?

For people disgusted by the complexity, contradictions, and end times madness of dispensationalism, any alternative seems like a breath of fresh air.
 
Go historicist. Protestants have been Pre-mill, amill, and postmill but all (probably unwise to say universally) protestants until well into the 19th century were historicists. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents were all historicists. That saying something in my opinion :2cents:
 
To clarify, I never really accepted dispensationalism after trying to understand it. I was taught it, but I was a middle-aged adult with a stubborn "prove it" streak when I was converted. No matter how they tried to connect the dots on their flow-charts, I kept hearing Matthew 24's last trumpet blaring away. I could never be convinced that there was anything secret about the gathering of the saints.
 
Originally posted by Peter
Go historicist. Protestants have been Pre-mill, amill, and postmill but all (probably unwise to say universally) protestants until well into the 19th century were historicists. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents were all historicists. That saying something in my opinion :2cents:

I've read and I own End Times Delusions: The Rapture, the Antichrist, Israel, and the End of the World by Steve Wohlberg, 2004. I don't think he is Reformed, but he is pretty strong about Reformation. He was a Jew to Christian convert.
 
Originally posted by victorbravo
To clarify, I never really accepted dispensationalism after trying to understand it. I was taught it, but I was a middle-aged adult with a stubborn "prove it" streak when I was converted. No matter how they tried to connect the dots on their flow-charts, I kept hearing Matthew 24's last trumpet blaring away. I could never be convinced that there was anything secret about the gathering of the saints.

The Parable of the Tares too me seems like a real monkeywrench in pretribulationism and dispensationalism.
 
Originally posted by victorbravo
To clarify, I never really accepted dispensationalism after trying to understand it. I was taught it, but I was a middle-aged adult with a stubborn "prove it" streak when I was converted.

I think I could say about the same thing... at no time was I really an avowed dispensationalist, but sucked up their presuppositions as if by osmosis living in the fundamentalist Bible Belt... where Jerry Falwell is only fifty minutes away. When I was a naive young teenager, I was scaring my my little sister with crazy dispie end times literature...
 
Originally posted by Peter
Go historicist. Protestants have been Pre-mill, amill, and postmill but all (probably unwise to say universally) protestants until well into the 19th century were historicists. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents were all historicists. That saying something in my opinion :2cents:

This is definately the way I'm leaning myself.
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Originally posted by Peter
Go historicist. Protestants have been Pre-mill, amill, and postmill but all (probably unwise to say universally) protestants until well into the 19th century were historicists. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents were all historicists. That saying something in my opinion :2cents:

I've read and I own End Times Delusions: The Rapture, the Antichrist, Israel, and the End of the World by Steve Wohlberg, 2004. I don't think he is Reformed, but he is pretty strong about Reformation. He was a Jew to Christian convert.

Haven't read the book but his website looks nice. First thing I looked at was the "we believe" section and I didn't notice any glaring heresies. Unfortunately, I've run into modalistic historicists and I'd say probably most remaining historicists are Seventh Day Adventists. I've watched half the Antichrist movie on the website and so far so good.
 
Originally posted by turmeric
Wasn't James Boice premillennial?

A pastor and second cousin told me Boice was amill the other week... but I always thought he was historic premil... Maybe, my pastor knows better than I-- because he has Boice's commentaries.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Puritanhead]
 
I'd like to find a token amillennialist that is also futurist (and not idealist), and hear their take on eschatology out of curiosity. Seems like an effective counter to Walvoord's charge that they spiritualize the text, when their fundamentals and kingdom views square up with Ladd's.
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Originally posted by turmeric
Wasn't James Boice premillennial?

A pastor and second cousin told me Boice was amill the other week... but always thought he was historic premil... Maybe, my pastor knows better than I-- because he has Boice's commentaries.

I too have seen him identified as historic premil. But I don't think I've ever read anything by Boice other than maybe an article or two here or there.
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
I'd like to find a token amillennialist that is also futurist (and not idealist), and hear their take on eschatology out of curiosity. Seems like an effective counter to Walvoord's charge that they spiritualize the text, when their fundamentals and kingdom views square up with Ladd's.

Abraham Kuyper was futurist and amil. He wrote a commentary on Revelation that, sadly, I have not yet looked into.

Boice was historic premil. However, he didn't finish his series on Revelation, so it would be interesting to see where he would have ended.
 
I was a dispie, bought into left behind nonsense and all that jazz. When I became Catholic I still held to that.

Now though that I am not in that lie anymore, I ome down on the side of amil partial-preterism
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
I'd like to find a token amillennialist that is also futurist (and not idealist), and hear their take on eschatology out of curiosity. Seems like an effective counter to Walvoord's charge that they spiritualize the text, when their fundamentals and kingdom views square up with Ladd's.

Can you ever write just one post instead of three or two in a row? If you think of something extra, I would suggest editing.

Sorry I am anal.
 
Originally posted by OS_X
I thought Spurgeon was futurist.

Spurgeon made comments that could lead to either. yes, I am familiar with Phil Johnson's take on it. he is probably right. However, spurgeon also made a lot of statements about human history and victory that sounded postmillennial. Either way, any side can quote him.

Iain Murray's Puritan Hope has a good deal to say on this.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by OS_X
I thought Spurgeon was futurist.

Spurgeon made comments that could lead to either. yes, I am familiar with Phil Johnson's take on it. he is probably right. However, spurgeon also made a lot of statements about human history and victory that sounded postmillennial. Either way, any side can quote him.

Iain Murray's Puritan Hope has a good deal to say on this.

Actually it is Dennis Swanson of the Masters Seminary that has done the pretty much definitive scholarship on this, and Spurgeon was definetly historic premil.

The evidence is overwhelming.

That tells us a few things:

1. People tend to selectively quote Spurgeon all the time, because just about everyone loves him. Dispensationalists pretend he was a Dispensationalist (although he loathed Darbey - read his Commenting and Commentaries on Darbey); Arminians pretend he was Arminian, etc.

2. While The Puritan Hope is helpful in many ways, it is the worst example of Murray's writings. He is selective throughout, making the Puritans - who had never even heard the word postmillenial - all out to be 20th century postmils. The truth is that there was no difference between (what is classic) amillenialism (as opposed to the William Cox version) and classic (non-theonomic) postmillenialism.

3. Postmils have NO patent on being "optimistic." Amils are generally (in the Reformed tradition) optimistic. Every historic premils can be classified as such - witness Spurgeon. The classic canard that you have to be postmil or be pessimistic is just that.

[Edited on 1/21/2006 by fredtgreco]
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Puritanhead
I'd like to find a token amillennialist that is also futurist (and not idealist), and hear their take on eschatology out of curiosity. Seems like an effective counter to Walvoord's charge that they spiritualize the text, when their fundamentals and kingdom views square up with Ladd's.

Abraham Kuyper was futurist and amil. He wrote a commentary on Revelation that, sadly, I have not yet looked into.

Boice was historic premil. However, he didn't finish his series on Revelation, so it would be interesting to see where he would have ended.

Steve Gregg edited a book called Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. In a review of it Ron Maness noted: 'The author emphasizes here that "œit should be remembered that the various approaches to Revelation are not linked inseparably to any particular millennial position" (page 28). For example, "œamillennialists have been found among adherents of several approaches to Revelation, including the historicist (e.g. Martin Luther), the preterist (e.g. Jay Adams), and the spiritualist (e.g. William Hendriksen), but only rarely of the futurist (Abraham Kuyper is an exception) (page 28)."'

Kuyper's commentary on Revelation can be found here.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Steve Gregg edited a book called Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. In a review of it Ron Maness noted: 'The author emphasizes here that "œit should be remembered that the various approaches to Revelation are not linked inseparably to any particular millennial position" (page 28). For example, "œamillennialists have been found among adherents of several approaches to Revelation, including the historicist (e.g. Martin Luther), the preterist (e.g. Jay Adams), and the spiritualist (e.g. William Hendriksen), but only rarely of the futurist (Abraham Kuyper is an exception) (page 28)."'

I'm aware of the historicist, preterist and futurist eschatological hermeneutics, but not the "spiritualist" - could you give a nutshell summary and/or point to some online resources?
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Steve Gregg edited a book called Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. In a review of it Ron Maness noted: 'The author emphasizes here that "œit should be remembered that the various approaches to Revelation are not linked inseparably to any particular millennial position" (page 28). For example, "œamillennialists have been found among adherents of several approaches to Revelation, including the historicist (e.g. Martin Luther), the preterist (e.g. Jay Adams), and the spiritualist (e.g. William Hendriksen), but only rarely of the futurist (Abraham Kuyper is an exception) (page 28)."'

I'm aware of the historicist, preterist and futurist eschatological hermeneutics, but not the "spiritualist" - could you give a nutshell summary and/or point to some online resources?

I believe the persons I quoted were using the term "spiritualist" as some would use the term "idealist."

This is how Jay Rogers describes the concept:

Idealism: This is also called the spiritualist approach. This view states that the prophecies of Revelation are not to be taken literally, but have a general symbolic application in all history. The heavenly battle of Revelation 12 is thought to describe the ongoing battle between good and evil in the spiritual realm.

This is not a school of thought that I have studied in-depth, but others on the board may be able to contribute more information.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco

2. While The Puritan Hope is helpful in many ways, it is the worst example of Murray's writings. He is selective throughout, making the Puritans - who had never even heard the word postmillenial - all out to be 20th century postmils. The truth is that there was no difference between (what is classic) amillenialism (as opposed to the William Cox version) and classic (non-theonomic) postmillenialism.

3. Postmils have NO patent on being "optimistic." Amils are generally (in the Reformed tradition) optimistic. Every historic premils can be classified as such - witness Spurgeon. The classic canard that you have to be postmil or be pessimistic is just that.

[Edited on 1/21/2006 by fredtgreco]

Wow, I learn something almost every day here. I liked the Murray book. But I agree that the optimistic vs. pessimistic distinction if false.

Vic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top