Quick Survey on Eschatological Positions of Current Board Regulars

[jwithnell]

Not at all. Jesus' ascension is also his coronation. What had been a provincial body of believers of basically one nationality has gone beyond all borders to all nations. However, the tribulation is an ongoing reality of believers living in a fallen world awaiting the full consumation of Jesus and His church at His second advent. You might want to give a listen to the series of sermons Dr. Sinclair Ferguson gives on the book of Revelation, available at Sermon Audio. Where you might encounter some exegetical challenges comes in dealing with Romans 11 and what appears to be a future awakening among ethnic Jews through the work of Christ. I found Dr. John Murray to be helpful in his commentary on Romans. (I'm not saying that Roman 11 creates challenges for an amil position; I've experienced it as a difficult passage period.)

 

[Peairtach]

Greg Bahnsen's tape series on Revelation taught me about the early date for Revelation and the importance of preterism.

Bahnsen and an article by Robert Thomas taught me that the Seven Seals, Trumpets and Bowls do not telescope or strictly parallel but are consecutive in the book and the book shows some sense of historical progress from the first century to the distant future.

James Madison MacDonald's "A Key to the Book of Revelation" - commended by Charles Hodge in a note to his section on eschatology in his "Systematic Theology" - taught me that you can have preterist views without squeezing the whole of chapters 6 to 19 into the first century (a la Gentry) or before the fall of the Western Empire ( a la Bahnsen).

Thus I take a somewhat eclectic view of the central section of Revelation (pretero-historico-futuro-idealo view).



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Vox Oculi]

Without meaning to tempt someone into a debate, but offering something to be commented on:

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.

It seems to me that one would have to allegorize the prophecies of wild animals becoming docile, men living to be over 100 regularly, and widespread peace (unless one concludes that Isaiah isn't talking about the Millennium--but if he weren't, he would be describing people dying in eternity...so thence, a conundrum), with the famine, abortion, warfare, rampant false religion, clearly dangerous animals, short lifespans, etc that are obvious today. Otherwise it would seem obvious that Christ is not presently the immediate ruler of earth, if the prophecies are expected to be literal (as the prophecies of His first advent certainly were). Further, how does one reconcile the statement that Satan is the "god of this world," (2 Cor 4:4) simultaneous with a supposed rule of Christ of this world?

I'm not bringing up those objections to start an argument, but to simply make an appeal, and express that I don't understand how one can see Christ as "on the throne" in the sense that's associated with millennial prophecies.

So, for response, if someone would, I'd ask for them to reflect on what positive thing it was that persuaded one most in favor of the "now on the throne" belief? Rather than ask for a specific rebuttal to the above paragraph. What was the clincher--if it was a theological persuasion and not, as I certainly suspect must be true for some, a rejection of the tendency in Dispensational settings to make much too big a deal of America as a special nation in prophecy...

Pardon if that was a bit too rambly/too much at once.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Some Food for Thought

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.

I will take your phrase "actual experience" as key to what I write. I want to mention a few scriptures about how "experience" affects psychology.

Exodus 6:8-9
8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.
9 And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.

Things were not going so well for people of God. Their experience in verse 9 caused them to disbelieve (disobey) the promise of verse 8.

Here’s a better example. It is what I like to call the Great Commission of the Old Testament.

Numbers 13:1-2
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.

Do you see it? “…Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel:”

Granted, we have a more robust Great Commission in the New Testament: Matthew 28:18-20 But it was an oft-repeated promise that God gave to the men of Israel in old times.

What was the result of the 12 spies that searched out the land?

Numbers 13:27-32
27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.
30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
(See Numbers 14:1-4 for more of their bad report and even worse behavior.)

The spies looked at the outward condition of Canaan and disbelieved the promise of God.

Moses and Aaron, “fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.” (Numbers 14:5)

Next: The ratio is always something like 10 to 2 who are in unbelief.

Joshua and Caleb, the two who believed, “rent their clothes” (Numbers 14:6), and said:

Numbers 14:7-9
7 And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land.
8 If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
9 Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not.

But who did the vast majority believe?

Numbers 14:10
But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the Lord appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.

And what did God think of all this commotion?

Numbers 14:11-12
11 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

Just keep reading the rest of Numbers 14:11-45 It is very telling interpreted of how God took the unbelief of the people. Everyone 20 and older would have to die in the wilderness over the next 40 years; a year for every day they searched out the land.

What did God think of the ten spies who brought an evil report?

Numbers 14:36-37
36 And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
37 Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the Lord.

Only Joshua and Caleb believed in their "Great Commission."

There’s more, but this post is too long already.

Check out my signature for my view of the future.

We have a Greater Commission and an all-powerful God.

Yes. The ratio is always about ten to two. I want to be of the two. How about you?

 

[Peairtach]

Without meaning to tempt someone into a debate, but offering something to be commented on:

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.

It seems to me that one would have to allegorize the prophecies of wild animals becoming docile, men living to be over 100 regularly, and widespread peace (unless one concludes that Isaiah isn't talking about the Millennium--but if he weren't, he would be describing people dying in eternity...so thence, a conundrum), with the famine, abortion, warfare, rampant false religion, clearly dangerous animals, short lifespans, etc that are obvious today. Otherwise it would seem obvious that Christ is not presently the immediate ruler of earth, if the prophecies are expected to be literal (as the prophecies of His first advent certainly were). Further, how does one reconcile the statement that Satan is the "god of this world," (2 Cor 4:4) simultaneous with a supposed rule of Christ of this world?

I'm not bringing up those objections to start an argument, but to simply make an appeal, and express that I don't understand how one can see Christ as "on the throne" in the sense that's associated with millennial prophecies.

So, for response, if someone would, I'd ask for them to reflect on what positive thing it was that persuaded one most in favor of the "now on the throne" belief? Rather than ask for a specific rebuttal to the above paragraph. What was the clincher--if it was a theological persuasion and not, as I certainly suspect must be true for some, a rejection of the tendency in Dispensational settings to make much too big a deal of America as a special nation in prophecy...

Pardon if that was a bit too rambly/too much at once.

Spme of your points may be answered from my amil-postmil perspective in that although Christ is ruling and reigning from the first century onwards, He didn't convert the whole world at once in the first century but is progressively converting the world (e.g. I Cor 15:25).

Also e.g., the Devil's binding is progressive:

And he laid hold on the dragon,

and bound him a thousand years

And cast him into the bottomless pit

and shut him up,

and set a seal upon him,
(Revelation 20:2-3)

Notice too that the growth of the leaven in three measures of meal is progressive, and the growth of the mustard tree. Also the growth of the stone cut without hands into a mountain (Daniel 2).

Much more could be said.

By amil/postmil, I mean that some of the older postmils would talk about the Millennium beginning e.g. when the Jews were converted or when the Papacy fell.

Most (all?) modern postmils believe that the Millennium began in principle in the first century, but is realised in history to greater degrees slowly but surely.

 

[Peairtach]

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.

I will take your phrase "actual experience" as key to what I write. I want to mention a few scriptures about how "experience" affects psychology.

Exodus 6:8-9
8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.
9 And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.

Things were not going so well for people of God. Their experience in verse 9 caused them to disbelieve (disobey) the promise of verse 8.

Here’s a better example. It is what I like to call the Great Commission of the Old Testament.

Numbers 13:1-2
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.

Do you see it? “…Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel:”

Granted, we have a more robust Great Commission in the New Testament: Matthew 28:18-20 But it was an oft-repeated promise that God gave to the men of Israel in old times.

What was the result of the 12 spies that searched out the land?

Numbers 13:27-32
27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.
30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
(See Numbers 14:1-4 for more of their bad report and even worse behavior.)

The spies looked at the outward condition of Canaan and disbelieved the promise of God.

Moses and Aaron, “fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.” (Numbers 14:5)

Next: The ratio is always something like 10 to 2 who are in unbelief.

Joshua and Caleb, the two who believed, “rent their clothes” (Numbers 14:6), and said:

Numbers 14:7-9
7 And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land.
8 If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
9 Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not.

But who did the vast majority believe?

Numbers 14:10
But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the Lord appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.

And what did God think of all this commotion?

Numbers 14:11-12
11 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

Just keep reading the rest of Numbers 14:11-45 It is very telling interpreted of how God took the unbelief of the people. Everyone 20 and older would have to die in the wilderness over the next 40 years; a year for every day they searched out the land.

What did God think of the ten spies who brought an evil report?

Numbers 14:36-37
36 And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
37 Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the Lord.

Only Joshua and Caleb believed in their "Great Commission."

There’s more, but this post is too long already.

Check out my signature for my view of the future.

We have a Greater Commission and an all-powerful God.

Yes. The ratio is always about ten to two. I want to be of the two. How about you?

There is an echo of the Great Commission and the Book of Acts in Joshua, too:

There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.(Joshua 1:5)

 

[Ed Walsh]

By amil/postmil, I mean

I guess I am an optimistic amil then since I tend to believe we are in the millennium now.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.

1Cor.7:29-31 "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away."​

What does "actual experience" in the first quote mean? There is, indeed, an apparent (in the sense of "seemingly") contrast between a Jesus who has--right now--"all authority in heaven and on earth;" and the flesh-borne lives of his earth-bound saints. But the Bible tells us that this condition should not alarm us:

Rom.8:36-37 "As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us."​

Could there be a more obvious acknowledgment of this "difficulty" in the pages of Scripture? The apostle tells us that the one thing is what we "see," the other is the REALITY, the actual experience.

Another way of looking at the matter is to consider Heb.11, all the way down to the end of the ch. Does this describe only the times of old, or all times; and the examples are given to support the faith of saints throughout the NT age?



In fact, what we end up with in eschatology disputes is that one side believes that there is definitive movement of humanity-as-a-whole toward positive/permanent results IN HISTORY, that is, prior to the END of this age and the final separation of all ungodliness from the presence of God, and the final state of New Earth and Heavens. There may be setbacks, e.g. an ascendant anti-Christ, etc.; but all that is prelude to victory in history.

And the other side believes that there is nothing but mixture of wheat and tares, societal downs and ups--perhaps even until the very end; and most likely the definite movement of humanity-as-a-whole toward negative results, making sin's rebellious results too plain, exposing the awful chasm between righteousness and wickedness IN HISTORY through the end, which ushers in the permanent solution. That moment comes outside of history.

All "millennial-focused" eschatology is preoccupied with history, with this present time. Whether it is premil (historic or disp.), or postmil, the consistent aspect is the view that the Bible's promises of victory over sin, death, and the devil--personal and corporate--have at least some TANGIBLE realization in history, prior to the final consummation and Last Judgment. This goes further than an understanding that salt and light have necessary (providential) temporal effects in history.

There are many points of disagreement between all three of these millennial positions, that's not the point. What should be indubitable is that their common view is that, "that which is unseen [and]... eternal," shall have some tangible, sensible, perhaps even universal expressions prior to the end of time; that this is a requirement of prophetic fulfillment.

The amillennial position is often lumped with the premils by the postmils ("pessimillennialism"), more often with the postmils by amils themselves (since neither is fixated on an exact span of years). People often associate "other views" together, over against their "unique middle-ground." What my aim is here is to gain admission from both postmil and premils that the radical divide they have with the amils is over the purpose of history itself.

Is history a display of redemption, or are there other essential purposes for THIS creation? Must, for example, there be a pre-consummation redemption of creation itself, whether by Christ or by the redeemed, (rebuilding of an earthly "Jerusalem" or "Eden")? The amil position most clearly of the four main positions says No. Each of the others either says Yes unqualified (golden-age postmil), or qualified (repairs of the fallen world cannot be finalized in this life, but only degrees of fix).

 

[Peairtach]

By amil/postmil, I mean

I guess I am an optimistic amil then since I tend to believe we are in the millennium now.

So do I, but I tend to call myself a postmil if asked.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peairtach]

It's true, Bruce, that some postmils can be OTT. Even if everyone in the world was converted everone of them would sin daily.

It's true that the Millennium was realised in principle in the first century. But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that, and it's true that the Church has made progress over the last 2,000 years but that the whole world has been only partially leavened.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Vox Oculi]

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.

What does "actual experience" in the first quote mean?

That I have watched National Geographic videos of animals eating other animals. That Steve Irwin died of a poison sting from an animal. That my own pets gobbled up some misfortunately located baby birds in front of my eyes, and that by this I know that we are not in the Millennium, because predation is still ruling in the animal kingdom.

That I have known very few people over the age of 100 and very many to die long before reaching that age. And by this, I know we are not in the Millennium.

 

[MW]

But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that

I see Christ reigning, judging, and triumphing in the very administration of the gospel itself, according to the terms of Ps. 110.

 

[Vox Oculi]

But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that

I see Christ reigning, judging, and triumphing in the very administration of the gospel itself, according to the terms of Ps. 110.

Ps 110 says this:

"The Lord is at Your right hand;
He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall execute the heads of many countries."

Where did this occur? And don't say all of history, unless you want me to believe that amil has "the day of wrath" and "the millennium" as simultaneously occurring.

 

[MW]

And don't say all of history, unless you want me to believe that amil has "the day of wrath" and "the millennium" as simultaneously occurring.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The truth is, that is what Scripture teaches, whether you like to hear it said or not. There is a judgment taking place in the gospel administration which shall be made visible on the great day of judgment.

 

[Vox Oculi]

And don't say all of history, unless you want me to believe that amil has "the day of wrath" and "the millennium" as simultaneously occurring.

The truth is, that is what Scripture teaches, whether you like to hear it said or not. There is a judgment taking place in the gospel administration which shall be made visible on the great day of judgment.

This seems like bad hermeneutic. The NT consistently places "the great day of wrath" as a future event, never a present continuing administration. Glorification and eternity are also described as future events...but do you say that we are now living in sinless, perfect, immortal bodies?

 

[MW]

This seems like bad hermeneutic. The NT consistently places "the great day of wrath" as a future event, never a present continuing administration. Glorification and eternity are also described as future events...but do you say that we are now living in sinless, perfect, immortal bodies?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Perhaps this is a point on which the confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh requires some consideration. The New Testament explains this Psalm in terms of Christ's exaltation to the right hand of God and present administration. What happens at the end of the administration is the revelation of something which is present but we do not yet see.

 

[Vox Oculi]

It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?

 

[Rich Koster]

I'll take the label Acts 1:11er. He's coming back, stop arguing, and do what He said.

 

[MW]

It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?

Inaugurated eschatology.

 

[Peairtach]

But it is also true that Christ can no longer triumph in the Gospel after He returns, because no-one can be converted after that

I see Christ reigning, judging, and triumphing in the very administration of the gospel itself, according to the terms of Ps. 110.

This is true. But also, in a number of passages e.g. Daniel 2 there appears also to be a general direction from e.g. small to big, and relatively weak to strong - the Mustard Seed - in the progress of Christ's kingdom, and this is generally borne out by history, but with steps forward and big steps back.

The last verse of Ps 110 indicates that plentiful effusions of the Spirit at appropriate points in history will revive the Church at points in the age long battle when she would appear to be at the point of fainting.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peairtach]

In my understanding of amillennialism's position that Christ is "now on the throne" -- in a different way than He was prior to the Incarnation, and presumably greater than a premillennial would see Him as Head of the Church -- I find this notion to be one of the more transparently difficult ones to reconcile with actual experience.

What does "actual experience" in the first quote mean?

That I have watched National Geographic videos of animals eating other animals. That Steve Irwin died of a poison sting from an animal. That my own pets gobbled up some misfortunately located baby birds in front of my eyes, and that by this I know that we are not in the Millennium, because predation is still ruling in the animal kingdom.

That I have known very few people over the age of 100 and very many to die long before reaching that age. And by this, I know we are not in the Millennium.

You seem to be following a rather literalist hermeneutic regarding the prophets, so it's no wonder you think these things are wholly future. But the prophets speak of "the last days", and the New Testament indicates "the last days" to be the period from Christ's first advent to His second advent - also the end of the world. So the things that the prophets speak about are wholly here or are at least inaugurated.

Also to be taken into account is the fact that if what some of the prophets say is interpreted literally it makes God's Word to talk nonsense and/or inauguates another age of miracles long after the Canon has been closed. E.g. Isaiah 2:2 would speak of Mount Moriah being made higher than Mount Everest. Until we see that we can be assured we're not in the last days.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peairtach]

It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven in history, as the Apostle says in Romans 1:18. It is revealed in the outworking of the Curse (Genesis 3). Death is a judgment on the unsaved and they are continually being individually judged by death and going to Hell.

Meanwhile these are just small tokens of the final great day of judgment where God's justice will fully be explained, understood, accepted and acknowledged and revealed. The unsaved will freely acknowledge that He's a fair and just God, after all.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[oeco]

Pan-millennial. I'm confident it'll all pan out in the end. [emoji6]

I'm amillennial myself. There's a great video on YouTube that is highly recommend, called "An Evening of Eschatology". Piper, Wilson, Storms and Hamilton all hammer out biblical amil/premil/postmil for 2 hours. Excellent. http://youtu.be/ws0vbT4Yu2s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ed Walsh]

B.B. Warfield - Are There Few that Be Saved

ARE THEY FEW THAT BE SAVED?
BY: Benjamin B. Warfield, d. d., ll. d., litt. d.
Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary

In this short article Warfield discusses the 3 (or 4) negative passages in the New Testament that have become dogma in much of the Church. They are: Mat. 7:14f; Luke 13:23f; Mat. 20:16; 22:14

There is a PFD document. Are There Few Saved.pdf
http://goo.gl/m7o8zY

And a docx document. Are There Few Saved.docx
http://goo.gl/iXVHRs

 

[jprince]

Voddie Baucham has a good series on the book of Revelation. It really opened my eyes to how much I misunderstood about revelation from growing up in a dispensational household. Here's the link: https://www.monergism.com/exposition-book-revelation-mp3-series-voddie-baucham

 

[Leslie]

Premil, believe in a mid-trib or post-trib rapture, but hope I'm wrong on the rapture bit.

 

[Vox Oculi]

It seems like you just switched from saying the wrath is present to saying it's future. What did I miss?

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven in history, as the Apostle says in Romans 1:18. It is revealed in the outworking of the Curse (Genesis 3). Death is a judgment on the unsaved and they are continually being individually judged by death and going to Hell.

Meanwhile these are just small tokens of the final great day of judgment where God's justice will fully be explained, understood, accepted and acknowledged and revealed. The unsaved will freely acknowledge that He's a fair and just God, after all.

And my point is that the best interpretation of the 'great day of God's wrath' is to specify the 'final great day of judgment' that you indicate. I don't have an issue with the fact that God's wrath is generally displayed. But the verses talking about "the great day of His wrath" are not talking about His general wrath but a specific instance of it. The issue wasn't that someone had said God's wrath is displayed during this time which is considered to be the millennium by amils--the issue was that the very thing which you yourself describe as future--'the final great day of judgment...after all'--was alleged to be simultaneous with the millennium. And this is clearly a contradiction, since -- you recognize yourself that you expect to see this sign -- unbelievers have not all bowed their knees to Him.

 

[Vox Oculi]

2 other observations, which I'll keep short since they could be debate threads in themselves:

1. I'm not literalistic in my hermeneutic, but take more passages literally than amils obviously do. I am well aware that the Bible is full of symbolism, and the Isa 2 verses are easily recognizable as not talking about height but importance when it refers to being 'exalted over the mountains/hills' -- further, hills and mountains are recognizable as earthly kingdoms, since Daniel and Revelation explicitly interpret themselves in this regard by telling us that mountains are kingdoms. Summary: I believe my hermeneutic is historical-grammatical and a natural reading of the text, and I apply the principle of taking the literal sense of a word as the most natural except when there is good reason to take it another way -- such as when the Lord is called a 'shield'.

2. It seems that the motive for taking Psalms to be talking about the Church is rooted in a rigid Covenant Theology which takes all the promises to Israel and redirects them to the Church. Seeing it this way would certainly result in nonsense interpretations if a historical-grammatical hermeneutic is followed with the prophetic passages of Scripture. Ultimately the conflict there could only be resolved by questioning the motives for adopting replacement theology versus a New Covenant-"Dispensational" approach to interpretation. And that would go beyond the scope of this thread

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rev Winzer speaks from a sector of Amillennialism called "consistent idealism", which differs from the eclectic or modified idealism of most contemporary amils. These latter assert there are historical referents spoken of in the Book of Revelation, while the "consistent" view denies it. This is an older thread on this topic: Revelation: inspirational drama of poetic symbols, or multi-genre prophecy?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

What is different about Christ on the throne now than before His incarnation is that He now has a human nature—one of us humans is the Lord of glory!—and we are brought into the throne to reign with Him (Rev 3:21).

In your post 33 you’re likely talking about Isaiah 65:17-25, indeed a difficult passage, as the prophet uses the best imagery he can—from what he knows—to convey life in the “new heavens and a new earth” announced in verse 17, identical to the eternal state spoken of in Rev 21:1 and 2 Pet 3:13.

The Lord on the throne in heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22) is presently ruling not only the nations, and His beloved church from there, but the entire universe, which is upheld by the word of His power (Heb 1:3). All things are in subjection to Him, and under His feet, although “now we see not yet all things put under him” (Heb 2:8). He is working out His plan in the earth, purifying His church in the furnace of affliction as He prepares to gather the adversarial nations for “the battle of that great day of God Almighty . . . into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon” (Rev 16:14, 16).

In Rev 20:7-9, we see this battle from another “camera angle”, under the symbolism of Gog and Magog going “up on the breadth of the earth” (Rev 20:9) to globally compass the camp of the saints, that is, the churches across the world. The symbolism is from Ezekiel 38 & 9 (shown also in Rev 19:11ff), a prophecy that had never been fulfilled previously.

Satan is “the god of this world” in that he rules in the hearts of most of humankind (Eph 2:2), but the devil is on a short leash and only allowed to do what God deigns according to His holy purpose.

The Book of Revelation was written so that the saints would have the vision and fidelity and courage to stay true to their God and Saviour even “when all around their souls gives way” with darkness and sin abounding, where the godless triumph, all virtue confounding. I like this saying of Tim Keller (though I don’t like everything he says), “Life-giving faith grows pure, and strong, and beautiful where gold grows pure, and strong, and beautiful – in the furnace.”

Daniel also was given vision to see the advent of Antiochus Epiphanes and his ravaging of Israel (God’s judgment for their sins), letting those who studied his prophesies to see this disaster coming, and spiritually be prepared to suffer. A similar thing will come our way.

I’m not sure what you refer to when you say, “a rejection of the tendency in Dispensational settings to make much too big a deal of America as a special nation in prophecy”. Would you elaborate, please?

Is not the “mountain” in Isaiah 2 the exalted state of the Kingdom of God—the church of Jesus Christ—to which all nations flow, now in this age?

By the way, if you would posit a literal millennial age you go against the Scripture, for its testimony is that there are only two ages (Greek aiōn), this present age (or world in the AV), and the world to come, the eternal state:

Matt 12:32 whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [age], neither in the world [age] to come.

Luke 20:34, 35 The children of this world [age] marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world [age], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.


​

This third age you think to have us accept is refuted by the Lord; there is this age, and the age to come. Not two ages, and a third to come.

You think to claim the historical-grammatical hermeneutic solely for yourself and your mostly literal interpretive approach? Well, I claim it also, as do the Reformed generally, as simply sound interpretive strategy. Where we differ from you is that we take into account the various genres used in Scripture. Both Daniel and Revelation—for the most part—are of the genres apocalyptic and vision, with Revelation epistolary as well (and Daniel including historical narrative). Apocalyptic and vision genres both convey their messages by symbolic imagery.

Then you talk about “rigid Covenant Theology”! Young person (I do not know if you are a young man or a young woman as you travel—even among brethren—incognito!), sound Covenant Theology is far from “rigid”, but rather a beautiful, divine, organic construct of God’s plan for saving humanity from destruction and for His glory, whereby we shall joy and praise in His presence untold ages.

And then you talk about so-called “replacement theology”. As though you know whereof you really spoke. In the post below I’ll show a brief paper, “ISRAEL HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY THE CHURCH”.